Abortion is a brutal procedure. And there is no explicit right in the Constitution protecting it. The decision should be up to the people, that is, the States.
I thought “men” could get abortions these days - all so confusing?? Maybe that’ll be next for Wokevilleans - just no abortions for people who actually have the biological ability to carry a foetus.
(I’m sure back-street abortion quack stock has risen exponentially on this awful news.)
Except nobody is forcing abortion on anyone. No medical procedure (including experimental vaccines) should be forced on any one. It's called the Nuremberg Code. Check it out.
Aww a fascist bringing out the Nuremberg code. Oh the irony.
Forcing women to stay pregnant is forcing a whole lot more than just a medical procedure.
God I’m so sick of these whiny man baby fascists.
DON’T WANT AN ABORTION, DON’T GET AN ABORTION. STOP SHOVING YOUR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS DOWN MY FUCKING THROAT. FUCK CHRISTIANITY AND FUCK JESUS’ IDIOT FOLLOWERS WHO DON’T FOLLOW ANY OF HIS TEACHINGS.
Didn't you describe yourself something like a "happily childless lesbian" elsewhere in these comments? I wish "happy" would apply not just to the "childless" attribute of your self-identification.
First, you started off great, telling Kevin off for acting like a man should have any say in what a woman does with her body. But, then, you transition into this trans-speak. WTF, please explain how a person born with a PENIS can give birth? Jesus Christ.
You’re not getting it. TRANS MEN have female reproductive organs. They were born female and transitioned into being men with a combination of male hormones and top surgery. Some of them keep their reproductive capabilities and some don’t depending on if they still wanna have kids or not / expense and pain of surgeries (bottom surgery for FTM beyond hysterectomies are risky, expensive and painful and rarely done but ultimately nobodies business).
A famous example is Ellen page who is now Elliot page.
TRANS WOMEN are the ones who (might) still have penises because they were born male and are transitioning to women with a combination of hormones and surgeries. Breast implants, and then a variety of different bottom surgeries exist although none make it possible to have a baby in the female experience. And not all trans women fully transition, some maintain their ability to have kids in the male role of reproduction.
Nobody is saying trans women can get pregnant. The media has people so fucking riled up and ignorant that their fucking lizard brains can’t comprehend the existence of trans men with female reproductive capabilities.
Bullshit. MAGA dorks are perpetual whiny-ass victims. "Boo hoo — they stole the election from our president who wears make up." Trump is a drag queen and you victim-in-perpetuity freaks worship him.
I think Kevin is stating a truth, abortion; the taking of the life of the most vulnerable humans, the unborn, is problematic in the extreme. It is brutal and many humans balk at it because it bothers their conscience and humanity.
The idea that the abortion procedures are there to cover the result of rape, child abuse, etc. is a polemical argument that although having some merit, that is women and girls do suffer these appalling traumas, is not representative of the vast majority of abortion on demand and abortifacient drugs used to terminate inconvenient irresponsible behaviour.
There is no solution. Which is not what many of us, I include myself here, who would like a nice binary answer to life's deep problems want to hear. The return of backstreet abortions would be horrendous. That is why Christian neutrality in politics applies here just as it does to war etc.
Mankind has no solution to these problems or what solutions he/she/they has/have is never satisfactory. So despite so-called Christians in the churches of Christendom engaging in politics, whether to campaign against abortion or for party political leaders as a hope for humans, Christ is not with them. On the contrary he told his followers to 'be no part of the world'.
I am making this point to illustrate that true Christianity would not be involved in the political process in any way despite our own Christian belief that life is sacred and begins at conception anymore than we would go onto a battlefield to try and disarm combatants.
This kind of argument only comes from MEN! If you don't want an abortion, don't get one. But, you and all the Neanderthals who wanted to eliminate legal abortions are putting our young women back in the days when they either used a coat hanger or found a butcher to do it in a back alley.
I think if you actually read what I wrote you would see that I was not advocating any political involvement at all. I was showing that true Christianity does not get involved in trying to change political laws. Which is important to show as many take the reprehensible behaviour of Christendom as a reflection of what the Bible teaches. It isn't.
I SAID: 'The return of backstreet abortions would be horrendous. That is why Christian neutrality in politics applies here just as it does to war etc. '
This is a great example of how ignorant people actually are. There is nothing "brutal" about suctioning out a tiny little clump of cells that is smaller than your pinky fingernail. It's the big fad now for Men to "feel like" women and so just turn into them.
The physiological, spiritual, and sociological hubris of men having the idea that they understand or "know" anything whatsoever about what it is to be a woman is astonishing. The hubris and arrogance of men having the idea that they have a right to tell women anything about how they should live is also astonishing. What really boggles the mind is the idea that anyone who has such ignorance about the realities of abortion, medically speaking, and the ignorance of what Jesus was actually about, forget Christianity, much less the realities of being a woman forced to endure the strictures of men from the day she is born until the day she dies, in a world where we've NEVER SEEN, in Western culture, a truly free female for thousands of years, talking about how there is "no solution," and telling us what "true Christianity" is, and what we ought to think, from his own ignorant and rather fascistic ideas about all of the above mentioned, much less try and TELL WOMEN WHAT IS CORRECT BEHAVIOR... That's rich, coming from someone who then talks about going onto a battlefield and trying to disarm combatants. HELLO.
MEN are the ones who make WAR, and cause things like the GENOCIDE we're watching right now, that threaten the very SPECIES they should be protecting. MEN are the ones who created NUCLEAR WEAPONS, and MEN are the ones who have caused the suffering and death of THOUSANDS OF BABIES AND CHILDREN with their wars and their toxins and their synthetic pesticides and fake medicines. Yeah, a token woman here and there gets in on the horror, but it's MOSTLY MEN. And when there are wars, MEN have traditionally gone to the "enemy" and RAPED THEIR WOMEN, even GIRLS.
I don't think MEN need to be lecturing WOMEN about a damn thing. And if you had ONE CLUE about the medical realities of abortion, you'd shut the hell up.
The fact is, it's time for MEN to get a little tiny bit of self-awareness and realize that WOMEN are not theirs to control, nor are WOMEN their belongings, their servants, nor their underlings. If you understood what Jesus actually represents, and what he usurped via other men's writing, then you'd be one step ahead of the rest of men, generally speaking.
I should clarify: Not all MEN are warmongering jerks. I know this! But there seem to be a lot of them that ARE in positions of power...
And yet many women are anti abortion. My mother a nurse in the 1950's refused to help with abortions although she has always identified as a feminist because of her conscience. I agree men have absolutely no right to control women or each other for that matter. But no one should infringe upon another's conscience. The debate about the ethics of abortion is not about male or female. However, the implementation of political/judicial rulings on abortion may well be. It is important to make the distinction.
You wokers are funny when you are losing a discussion. What I see is an exerburence of histrionics about the issue from the abortion with very little real reason for taking responsibility and stopping the dismemberment of a human being. Your response does not help your cause.
So you're admitting that abortion really benefits the male patriarchy and encourages abuse of women. You should probably think about your arguments before you release them.
"There are fake partisan diversions designed to keep people chasing their tails instead of focusing on real issues, and then there are real agendas which are of high value to the empire."
And she gets perfect illustration in the comments.
The irony! You've got people responding that supposedly come to Caitlin's forum for free exchange of ideas. As soon as they find a poster they don't like their spirit just evaporates.
How is opposing the recent Supreme Court decision overturning Roe v Wade equivalent to "I stand with Ukraine"? If you read Caitlin's article, she too believes this strike down of women's rights appalling.
As I was the original thread "continuer" I can try to clarify. The issue is not disagreeing. The issue is such a religious adherence that causes going after a person behind the challenging point of view rather than debating it.
There are arguments and "arguments". Read the responses and try to tell the difference. Yours belongs to the latter category while you claim to be a "senior". More irony.
Since you've deleted your first knee-jerk response I'll bring it up here, in full:
"Yes, yours is a pathetic "argument" to attempt to belittle an argument that was better than yours. Much like alanis morrissette, you don't quite understand the definition of the word 'irony'."
The reason I did is I was about to answer that I prefer julio iglesias's understanding.
This isn't about being "right". It's about addressing a vital issue in US society. I believe the best solution is to allow the people of each State to decide what's best for them.
And you know from personal experience it's a "brutal procedure", Kevin? After a rape, most women find the procedure freeing and say that it helps them heal from the psychological trauma. So, what's more "brutal"--having an abortion or letting women suffer lifelong trauma from a forced pregnancy and birth? (I suspect, as a righteous male, you will say it's "God's will" that women who are raped or suffer incest deserve to suffer trauma. You probably thank God for being born the "superior" sex, too.)
When an unborn creature is pulled apart, limb from limb, it's most definitely a brutal procedure. And certainly nothing to be celebrated. The only sense of self-righteousness I see here is coming from you.
Do you realize, that in the early stages of pregnancy, a fetus is not yet developed enough to think or sense pain? And the vast majority of abortions are performed before 10 weeks?
Now if you are talking about the fetus reaching the threshold of feeling pain, then that would indeed be brutal without anesthesia.
It stands to reason the baby in the womb has some form of consciousness we just don't have the technology to read it currently and likely would need to use spiritual tools to read it. None the less whether it is painful or not you are killing that human being. That is what it is an INDEPENDENT SEPARATE HUMAN BEING to the mother. It's a creation of the father's seed and the mother's ovum. it's NOT part of the woman's body.
Do you remember being a fetus? Does the lying ass government ever tell you the truth about anything? Would they tell you if a fetus feels pain? They mostly think we are useless eaters.
Well and the women that are looking for guilt relief and justification for being The Terminator earlier in their lives and who want to use it again as contraception so they can have sex with no responsibility in the creative act.
What is more brutal, I wonder: Choosing when and with whom and how to have and raise children, or raising them unwanted, in poverty probably, deprived of a father, likely-- while the daddy just disappears... Does anyone care about that child? I mean, THOSE children? Who's got stats on how many children go to bed hungry in the USA? Oh, I think it's ONE IN FIVE. But that tiny little blob of cells is a BABY, being "pulled limb from limb." FFS.
So it's better to be dead than poor? That's incredibly materialistic. Some of our greatest contributors to society came from poverty-stricken backgrounds.
Rape is the read herring issue trotted out as the one main reason for legal abortion. Women do get raped. So how many and how many rape victims get pregnant? So it is kind of a weak argument. Because we all know that unprotected sex is a risk and I bet the numbers show, most abortions are matters of convenience, not violence. We play word games over an issue. Tell the truth. It is as ugly as rape. Women and men dont give a fuck so long as they can get their next high. Bedroom, drugs, alcohol, food. The dead dismembered baby is mostly an aftermath and a consequence of some human behavior. Our ability to deal or not capable of dealing with our responsibilities is the true problem.
Had any of these posters actually bothered to ask me my position on this issue, I would have discussed it with them. It looks like they'd rather yell and label and threaten instead. Too bad.
Rape is the ultimate violation of choice. A person who is raped is not responsible for becoming pregnant. They never got the opportunity to make the choice. And since they didn't make the choice, they should not be held responsible for the outcome.
As such, I would have a mechanism in place, in States that ban abortion, to allow women who have been raped to get an abortion. It wouldn't require any police report, or a report to any authority at all. Simply a signed, written statement that she was raped. After the abortion is completed, that written statement would be shredded in front of her.
If men actually did get pregnant this would not be an issue.
If there was better birth control especially for men this would not be an issue.
If people really believed my body my choice this would not be an issue (and neither would vaccine passports or mandates).
If we did not have 5 Catholic Justices or two on the bench because of republican hypocrisy this would not be an issue.
If people had the consciousness to know that there are about 8 billion different belief systems in the world like many believe the soul enters the body at birth this would not be an issue. (If people respected other people and their beliefs)
If the Christian inquisitors and their descendants had not brutally murdered women healers who knew how to end unwanted pregnancies with herbs this might not be an issue.
If those against terminating unwanted pregnancies were required to collectively pay for the care of the babies they think they are saving this would not be an issue.
Don't leave out monetary rewards for political chicanery....
But-- You're wasting your time with these little boys on here. This is why Patriarchy sucks. Men and brainwashed little boys don't understand enough of the world, and don't have the capacity for it anyway... This is why we have war pretty much all the time. So... let 'em soak in their own ignorant bile. We're not finished. We'll let them yammer and deal with this like grownups.
The baby is NOT the mothers body by definition as it's a separate being that was created with the father's seed. What of the the child's rights and the fathers rights? You trivialise them with your lie that the child is the mothers body.
I'm not willing to stipulate Roman Catholics, Jesuits, or Black Nobility be "Christian". That word is very poorly defined; I might go so far as to say deliberately misdefined. (Should mean "caring".)
Whether or not you are willing there are 5 Catholic Justices and the Inquisitors who murdered maybe millions are all called Christians along with those who murdered actual living breathing babies like the Crusaders and don't forget all the wars between Christians nor the colonization and enslavement of millions.
So you say. VICarIVs fILII DeI is the 666 beast. Just go on boasting of how famous you are - actual meaning of "semite". Roman Catholics lie about the meaning of "christian". No, it isn't your vaunted charism, though you likely have a charagma. And you've grossly distorted "u es Petrus et super hang petram aedificabo ecclesiam mean et tibi dabo claves caelorum". Hey, I'd long wondered why Catholics and Hofjuden have such a long-running good cop-bad cop act.
How are you reading this substack? Plenty of online Bibles. I usually use https://www.blueletterbible.org/ though sometimes others. I think I made it already. Most "christians" are fake. The word shares etymology with Cyrus. It does not mean "anointed" (with the Holy Spirit) as the Catholics (which properly also includes most other denominations; just see if they use a Bible based on the Vulgate) claim.
That wasn't what I said. You know it's a creative act that is why it is exciting and pleasurable. You must accept that even using the best contraception that if you take the D as a woman you might get pregnant. It's a fact. However you just don't want to be responsible for that and your lie that the child is a part of the woman's body. It's NOT! it's half the father's body and it's wholly the child's body which is a separate entity. The mother is just a caretaker.
And I see insults are the way you maintain yours. State legislatures are elected directly by individuals. The person who gets a majority of the vote wins the election. It is democracy in its most concentrated form, at least in this system.
So if individuals want to see unlimited abortions, up to and beyond birth, they can elect reps and senators who will make that happen. They can also choose to lobby and influence said congress people, or even run for office themselves.
Of course, all of this requires said individuals to actually study the issues, learn the system of government, and apply said knowledge in steady and consistent manner.
If you view describing your behaviour as an insult, it should tell you something. You know damn well protecting individual rights is not the same as relinquishing them to the States, so your statement about word games is so clearly bad faith that it looks stupid
Well said. Seems to me ALL fascism is stupid. And if there were something that threatened ONLY men with something fascist and/or intrusive, unfair, etc., I would DEFEND the men's rights, too! Thanks.
If you want to see "abortions beyond birth" at an end, then you should be out in the streets protesting WAR. Your ignorance is what rules your mind, and that's also insulting.
Looks to me like the children are basically trying to run this. I don't feel like this topic is really well-understood by children and it's inappropriate anyway, since children don't understand adult life. Sooooo, bye.
Don't bother trying to educated these children, asher. Let it go. We grownups will deal with the grownup issues on our own...
Well I am accurate. There was no one pushing fascism that I have seen in all these threads. You are inaccurate as you are insultingly name calling me. Your arguments are fundamentally and demonstrably lies. When the debate is lost, slander (and/or libel) becomes the tool of the loser. Socrates.
I think the point is that if questions of privacy and abortion are retained by the people, then you could have individuals make the decisions, or the people's voices could be manifest by state legislatures or by the Federal legislature.
I think we automatically assume state legislatures because this fight has been going on in the courts, and in that context we're talking about competing state laws (that's how the cases get to SCOTUS).
But it's not a word game to consider all of the potential ways the people's voice could be manifest.
The State Legislatures are elected directly by the people. By a majority vote. Which means that if a majority of the people of any State want abortion, they will have it. See California as a perfect example of this.
This is the way the Republic was originally designed. The "One Size Fits All" approach, where the federal government attempts to dictate reality to all States, doesn't work. It's actually destroying the nation. The People need to be the ones calling the shots. And, in our system, that means the States.
What I'm advocating is for individuals to get involved with their State legislatures. Because, moving forward, that's where the power in this system will reside.
Of course he'll donate all his income and wealth to take care of the children. If one calls oneself "Pro-Life" then you can't just force women to bring children into the world who can't afford them. You'll provide food, shelter, clothing and education for ALL of them. Thank you for your generosity!! (What's that? Did I hear the door slamming in the background and Kevin crawling into his sports car and racing away to get out of his responsibilities toward all these poor kids?)
Do you have a uterus? Then shut the fuck up. Let women make up their own mind, eh. Besides, safe abortion procedures weren't invented at the time of the signing of the Bill of Rights. Peace
Abortion has been around for centuries. Part of the decision from the SC was based on English Common Law. And England's approach to abortion. Feed your head. Dig?
Kevin, I agree with you to a point. Late-stage abortion is indeed brutal and should only be undertaken in the rarest cases to save the life of a woman. But for tens of millions of American women, safe, legal, early abortion is actually merciful. A wise and merciful people would understand that. A wise and merciful people would make safe contraception affordable and readily available so that abortion would be rare. They would enact nationalized healthcare so pregnant women, infants and children (and of course men too) would always have access to high quality affordable medical care. A wise and merciful people would prioritize affordable housing so pregnant women, infants, and children (and men) would always have safe homes. But that is not what Americans do (and liberal politicians are as much to blame in this regards as conservatives) and so Caitlin is proven right: making abortion illegal is about controlling women and NOT about caring for women, fetuses, and babies; the issue of abortion is used by both parties to keep people fighting among ourselves instead of finding common ground and challenging power. We are not a wise people. We are certainly not merciful.
Any stage abortion is brutal as you are killing a child that is a separate individual entity. However you just don't want to be responsible for that and you lie that the child is a part of the woman's body. It's NOT! It's half the father's body and it's wholly the child's body which is a separate individual. The mother is just a caretaker.
I'm not sure how destroying tens of millions of unborn human beings is wise or merciful. But I do agree that birth control should be available to every woman, for free or at very low cost. If the goal is women's empowerment, and control over her reproductive system, that is the easiest solution out there.
Thank you for your reply. I appreciate, and respect, your perspective. In our brief exchange you and I have demonstrated an ability to find common ground. And that is what we need as a country and people. It isn't necessary or even desirable that we all hold the same beliefs and opinions. But it is necessary that we find reasonable compromise to our most intransigent and polarizing problems. There is wisdom and mercy in that. Again, I thank you and wish you well.
While the current buzz and screaming is about US law this is an international global issue. I would say that if it is not legal or protected in a countries constitution that states should not have the opportunity to make legislation that is likely contrary to the constitution of that country.
Sure there is. The Constitution goes still further, requiring a federal permit for birth from the Congress (not "the people"). Article I Section 8: "To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization". Perhaps overblown, but so's your "brutal procedure". Just lay off your forced birthing to provide cannon fodder.
According to the Law of Rob, 11 likes and counting means you must be right. Who are these people with all these likes? They're dingleberries stuck to Trump's asshole, that's who and what they are.
"Go jerk off fascist incel trash" - that just flew off your tongue and suggests intimate relationship with and close familiarity of. Can you describe the notion/process?
U.S. sanctions around the world starving and killing men, women and children.
From fair.org -- Lesley Stahl on U.S. sanctions against Iraq: We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that’s more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?
Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: I think this is a very hard choice, but the price–we think the price is worth it.
—60 Minutes (5/12/96)
….and where are the complaints or protests from these Catholics on those evil actions?
It's all about making rapists great again. These states have horrific infant mortality rates so instead of a first trimester abortion they would prefer mother and child die in the trauma of birth since they won't allocate any resources for safe healthy neonatal care for those who can't afford it and if the mother and child are lucky enough to make it through that harrowing crucible, there is a life of poverty and prison and/or street violence to look forward to as the reward for toughing it out. These people are the devil.
The irony for me was reading an online newspaper about Roe v. Wade being overturned, and right across the page was an article about a man arrested for meeting women online and taking them to a parking lot and raping them after they met in person.
The authorities suspect he has victims all over the country.
Over half the states are outlawing abortion. Some of them are outlawing it even if the woman became pregnant from rape or abuse, which is cruel.
If the woman is poor, and 3/4 of women seeking abortions are poor or low-income, she is already having a hard time scraping together the money for the abortion, let alone the time off and funds to travel however far she needs to go. And time is of the essence.
In Texas, all the surrounding states are banning abortion except for New Mexico. It's a long drive to New Mexico and it will be a long drive to get past all the other states also banning it.
To make matters worse, one of the representatives in Texas is sending "cease and desist" letters to advocacy groups who were giving funds to poor women so they could travel. These letters state that giving travel funds to these poor women is against a pre-Roe law still on the books in Texas. This representative has vowed to go after the advocacy groups.
For women with little money, this is effectively almost just as good as making it illegal.
When we view so much of the debauchery today being leveled from a class perspective, it makes total malevolent sense. This is first and foremost about class and secondarily about patriarchy. Oligarchies are, or have historically been and still are, patriarchal.
Which states have horrific infant mortality rates? This is hysterical nonsense. Every baby born goes to a life of poverty and prison? C'mon.
My argument to that is that every child born in the USA has an opportunity to be president of the USA. They have an opportunity to be all they can be. That is true. Ask Barrack Obama.
Dear Caitlin, I love your newsletter. I'm obsessed with your intense, eye-opening, sometimes terrifying takes on things — war stuff, government corruption and evil — which before this year I did not think I could possibly be interested in. You, Mike Cernovich, and Glenn Greenwald are tied as my three favorite people online. I'm writing this to you because I like you so much! Also I'm not very active on social media, so maybe I am just using this as my outlet to vent. Sorry not sorry!
What I saw happen today was that a shoddy and overreaching precedent was rightly disposed of (just as we eventually disposed of some other insane decisions that our freaky SCOTUS gave us over the years). Now a healthy (and probably long and ugly) debate can ensue about what limits and laws we the people can compromise on.
I admit to a certain callousness and a blind spot, as I don’t personally know any women who have been in that abusive situation you describe — where they need an abortion for their own safety from their partner. My heart would break if I did know that person and I would do everything I could to help her, but there are still other solutions than abortion. Perhaps none of them are easy peasy lemon squeezy, but life isn't easy. Saving a life is worth sacrifice. (Plus, if they are in abusive relationships it sounds like their life is not all that easy anyway...?) I would also argue that making the decision to have the baby and protect it from their abusive dude might be the impetus they needed to escape their bad situation. A net good after a huge initial hardship. I'm not minimizing how difficult that would be, but just because something is really really difficult doesn’t mean you shouldn’t do it.
On the flip side, I suspect it’s equally, if not more common for women to be pressured by boyfriends and husbands and families to have abortions. Abortions they would not have chosen if they felt they had true freedom to decide. These women are not free. They do not have a “choice” (in their mind.) They “choose” abortions because they feel force and pressure from their loved ones, with the weight of the whole of society backing it up and bearing down on them. I have been tempted to have an abortion myself, simply to avoid embarrassment! That's how pervasive the culture of death is (and how weak and insecure I am, but that's another story) — that I would think of ending a human life, that I myself helped create, just to save myself some trouble in telling my family I had a one-night-stand.
Being pro-life 100%, I will never feel at peace until there are no abortions, no death penalties, etc. … but I can at least be ok at the civil level with the limits Americans decide on for abortion. What was never ok was that a group of old '70s dudes with a god complex passed legislation from the bench that took away our right to hash out our own laws on this issue.
Further note: watch Dave Portnoy’s video denouncing the overturn. What a true feminist that man is. I couldn’t help but think “Now there’s a guy with a conflict of interest…" Of course HE wants ladies to be able to have all the abortions they want.
The founding fathers specifically wanted to avoid a pure democracy because it gives voters too much power to oppress some people, if they can garner enough votes to do so. Therefore, they created a republic rather than a pure democracy.
The justices that sit on the Supreme Court are supposed to prevent a mob democracy from voting to take away rights and liberties from some people, by affirming rights given to citizens by the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
By overturning Roe v. Wade, they failed miserably.
Here are some of the opinions written by the dissenting justices on why overturning Roe v. Wade is a big mistake. They are well worth reading.
The objection is based on the assumption that the child or fetus is the woman’s body and, therefore, under her control and choice. If the probability and possibility of growing separate sentient life created as a research of the father’s sperm merging with the mother’s ovum, creating new human life that is separate from the mother despite requiring the mother to continue to house and nurture the child for 9 months is accepted, then all claims and legal angles are defunct. What of the child’s rights? Are the father’s rights not equal to the mother's rights? Surely, a child's rights usurp the mother's and father's rights and should be paramount.
This comment I agree with for the most part and it's a strong argument — the closest that comes to swaying me. However, reasonable people will always disagree at where that line is — where democracy’s raw power ends and the court’s should begin. I tend to think the court has always granted itself too much power and I will almost always favor reversals of that. The fact that we all know exactly what liberal justices will rule EVERY time shows that they do not have legitimacy in making objective, nonpartisan decisions. Some might say the same about conservative justices (although in my lifetime I have seen only conservative justices who are willing to rule unpredictably). And even if BOTH sides always rule predictably and partisanly — that shows exactly why the court’s power should be extremely limited.
One was from a nurse in a state where their trigger law went into effect immediately. A woman came in with an ectopic pregnancy. I don't take for granted that men know what that means, so I apologize if you already know, but it means the fertilized egg stayed in the fallopian tube and started growing there instead of the uterus. It's deadly.
The doctor went to consult a lawyer because he didn't want to lose his license. While the patient was waiting, her ectopic pregnancy ruptured. Yet she had to WAIT NINE HOURS for her procedure because the doctor was still with the attorney. By the time she had her procedure done, she had 600 cc of blood in her abdomen and almost died. The nurses were crying and they're scared of going through this again without being to do anything about it.
The second Instagram post was from a doctor who diagnoses high risk pregnancies. He's in Ohio and abortions for "LETHAL" fetal anomalies are now illegal. He said someday soon he will have to "look someone in the eyes, and tell them that they, against their will, will carry to term, undergo delivery, and then have their child die."
This overturning Roe v. Wade is working out so well. :(
Thank you for this comment. I'm horrified by both of these situations, if they happened, and I hope there will be legislation to do away with those extreme examples. (I am a woman, btw.) Doctors should never put a life-saving surgery on hold to consult a lawyer, my goodness.
I think a lot of these new laws are badly written. The anti-abortion legislators seem to be allergic to consulting doctors when they are writing them.
Poland banned abortions about a year or so ago. It didn't take long before they had three women die because the hospitals were so afraid of performing an abortion to save their lives. They insisted they could not do it until there was no heartbeat. All three women went septic and died.
I think the rationale for striking down Roe v Wade was a legal/constitutional one (as I understand it from the other side of the pond.) The constitution does not provide a legal right to abortion any more than any other medical procedure and so it cannot stand. No other country attempts to embed it in this way as a right and seem to manage perfectly well. It does not prevent women having abortions. Federally a law could be brought in to make terminations illegal after a certain duration but whether a termination is appropriate is a matter for clinicians etc. Perhaps this will allow the horribly polarosed debate to arrive at a comprpmise. Irreconcilable absolutists on both ends should accept this as adults in a polity. What is notable is that RvW was a money spinner for the Dems; millions of dollars of donations exclusively to them via RvW based Planned Parenthood now cut off. Follow the money.
Here is information you may not have considered. The link below details the dissenting opinions of the justices who didn't agree with overturning Roe v. Wade.
That the Constitution and Bill of Rights does not name "abortion" as a right, isn't really an argument. When they guaranteed the right to personal liberty and privacy, they did not enumerate in detail which personal liberties we could have or not have. The gist is that we have liberty to make personal decisions as long as we don't trample on another person's personal liberty.
A fetus is not capable of thought or pain in the early stages of pregnancy, and most abortions are performed before 10 weeks. Pregnancy will always be more dangerous than not being pregnant. There are all sorts of physical complications that carry the risk of injury or death.
You may not compel anyone to give you their organs after their death, no matter how much you need them to save your life. They must volunteer to donate them, even though they would hardly miss them. To compel a woman to take on the physical risk of pregnancy, is to say she has less rights over her body than a corpse.
We are a republic and not a pure democracy. The Supreme Court is supposed to protect us from the majority voting to suppress the rights and liberties of others.
I had the same argument with a hunter who said a cow in a slaughterhouse does not know what is happening. That is easily proven wrong by the reaction of any animal facing death.
If a women wants a abortion that woman should be informed of the experience the life inside of her is experiencing. The bond between mother and child is developed from conception.
You did not finish reading that link because it ultimately does not say what you think it says.
Also, you are comparing a cow with a completely developed nervous system to a fetus in early development without a developed nervous system.
Most abortions are performed before 10 weeks, and I can assure you there is zero capacity to feel anything at that stage. All the structures and linkages needed are just not there yet.
And that's what a scientist or doctor would inform a woman of. They are not going to tell her anything different no matter what you think.
Look, I support outlawing abortions at the point the fetus can feel pain (except to save the life of the mother and they can use anesthesia for the fetus). But nearly zero abortions are performed at that stage, so it's a non-problem!
My view was deliberately above the issue where rights arguments are on both sides and the differences are insoluble. SCOTUS says it is not a right and they are the authority on that and that's that. I am with Naomi Wolfe on this. https://naomiwolf.substack.com/p/on-losing-roe While of a pro-choice background, she quotes from and supports the clearly considered and thoughtful judgement that this issue must be returned to the legislatures where the public can debate and resolve their differences in the public space. That the stikedown is not a ban in itself as some say is evident from whether states have either banned or not banned. The right is no longer relevant or helpful, whether it was in the 70's. The right and the legality are different. America has a superb system of balanced federal and state powers, the best in the world. The sudden illegal/legal binary state is just the start of a new debate and I am sure the democratic process will lead to a better and consensus situation than the rights as weapon situation. This is not the 70's. The states can decide, democratically through debate and vote as should be the case and I have faith that America will be the better for it.
I used to support you Caitlin however this is a very poor and low consciousness bad analogy. It has nothing to do with Jesus as you suggest.
"I wanted to meet my biological mother mostly to see if she was OK and to thank her, because I'm glad I didn't end up as an abortion. She was twenty-three and she went through a lot to have me."
Steve Jobs.
The world would be very different if Jobs was an abortion. Gates admitted to copying the Macintosh substantially for his coders to create Windows. There would be no iPhone and likely no Android. The Google head Eric was on the Apple board and got all his inspiration from Apple. Job's children would never have been born. I think they are glad they were born. And so on...
You know what drives the abortion trade? Super valuable parts like stem cells from the fetuses that you can't get easily from anywhere else. The longer the age of the child in utero the more valuable the harvest! Hence laws changing on that in the past decade or so.
My choice my body works ethically on DNA/mRNA new tech jabs as it's an assault on one's own body if mandatory to hold a job and live.
My choice my body doesn't work ethically in regards to abortion as the child is a sentient being created by both the father's seed and the mother's egg residing temporarily in the mother's body and it's an assault on the child. The mother didn’t create this child on her own. Get the child's signature and permission before you proceed thanks!
Are there any other men here who have found out later that a WoWman terminated your child without even telling you she was pregnant and you would have happily cared for the child, no child support needed or demanded? If you take the D, a creative act, be prepared for the consequences. Even using contraceptives they are at best 97% effective which means 34 lovemaking sessions = one baby. I have been known to complete 6 lovemaking sessions a day. Obviously, the woman needs to be ovulating.
I admit rape and other medical issues bring up other ethical and psychological concerns. I am talking about a child made in Love.
A fetus has no thoughts or ability to feel pain in the early stages of pregnancy. Most abortions are performed before 10 weeks.
Pregnancy is inherently a more risky physical condition than not being pregnant, with multiple possible complications including possible death. THIS is the reason the decision belongs to the woman. The man never risks his life in pregnancy.
You can't compel someone to give you their organs once they are deceased without their permission. Pro-lifers want women to have fewer bodily rights than a corpse.
That's meant to be a retort? For one it's a baseless argument. There is no definitive studies that show "a fetus has no thoughts or ability to feel pain in the early stages of pregnancy"! There might be a funded scientist stating an opinion that is so with no solid evidence of that or comprehensive data. How could you get inside the consciousness of a human baby in the early stages of it's development?
Two, you never countered my valid point that the child's body is NOT a part of the woman's body; it is a creation of the fathers sperm and the mother's ovum. There is not one person in the world, apart from those currently going through suicidal or insane thoughts, who would say "I wish I was an abortion". Steve Job's testimony is a classic case point as I alluded to. So to argue that one medical operation, that would kill the child, is ok because there is a very slight risk of death bringing the pregnancy to term is like justifying murder because the targeted person might commit a crime in the future. Yes it's a very remote possibility however murder shouldn't be sanctioned.
Women's liberation and rights don't give you a right to end a child's life in it's early stages. You had sex, a creative act, with full knowledge that you might have a child. You want to have the passionate feelings, climax and sensations and then if the final outcome isn't what you desire you want to become The Terminator? Charming.
It's like a science fiction drug addict addickted to a drug that has a small chance to create a baby inside a female but not a male and then women demanding that they have the right to consume that drug, and then terminate the child if they become pregnant because they want the same outcome as men, get the high, with no pregnancy. Well our western society makes men responsible even when they are not. It's called child support. Why do women expect everything there way yet demand "equality"? Like when they go to a male strip show it's "women's liberation" and is celebrated as empowerment but when a man goes he's a slease bag low life and shamed?
Three, the organ donation comparison is incomparable as those organs can't live a life of their own and can't be used after death by the person who died. Also organ's are part of a persona body a child is not it is something individual that is made by two people inside a woman's womb.
While we are on the that completely separate topic I would say personally I would be OK with a law that all organs are donated if they are viable whether people signed or not. What are people going to do with this after death anyway? The dead don't care after death even if they said they did during their earlier life. Only their families could get upset if they chose to look at it as a violation of their relative's body. That viewpoint is a poor choice. People in time would learn to choose a more elevated viewpoint that supports the enhancement of society.
We are not our physical bodies. We all have spirits or souls even if you are an atheist. Something leaves when a person dies. If it was just chemistry that energy would manifest in heat or some other physical measurable form but it doesn't. Why? Because the energy that powers life, consciousness, unconscious thought, feelings, imagination, and spirit is energy that is not physical and not physical chemistry. I would argue that is spiritual.
Spirituality just is. It is no religion. It's not about Jesus or a version of Christianity that is subscribed to by various people as suggested by Caitlin. If that is possibly true then when you become The Terminator you kill that soul or spirits opportunity as well as it's body. Did you ever consider that? You kill Steve Job's life and all he created in this world that has a multiplier effect like his children, like the thousands of jobs Jobs created etc. DEAD.
Finally I am an AU/UK dual citizen, not American, however as I understand it abortion is currently still legal in USA up to 15 weeks. Why are you screaming for the ability to terminate after 15 weeks, which is 38% of full term or nearly 4 months? You demand more women's rights? I am rather amazed.
How much research have you done about what scientists know about the development of the fetal nervous system. It's clear that the answer is "ZERO".
The fetus REQUIRES living inside the mother to exist. Pregnancy is inherently physically risky for a woman because of possible complications that risk bodily injury or death.
It is always safer to not be pregnant. This is why the woman should have the last word. SHE IS THE ONLY ONE RISKING HER HEALTH OR LIFE by being pregnant. THE MAN RISKS NOTHING, yet you are bitching about the woman having the final say?
If the MAN was the one risking his life, he'd have the final say.
Pregnant women with WANTED pregnancies are also affected. Obstetricians in Texas have been operating with a near total ban on abortions for months since the Supreme Court didn't overturn their new abortion laws. Texas obstetricians have reported that they are not able to give their patients with WANTED pregnancies the normal standard of care. Pregnant women who develop complications can go from healthy to near-death very quickly and can require a life-saving abortion. Texas doctors are now letting them get to the point that they develop deadly sepsis, before performing a life-saving abortion. They are worried that they will be charged with performing a regular abortion if they make the decision earlier, so it is now far more risky to be pregnant in Texas even if you wanted to.
I don't know why you think it matters that the U.S. currently still has legal abortion for another five minutes. Half the states are set to ban it immediately. Some of them will even ban abortion for women who are pregnant because of rape or incest. 3/4 of women who seek abortions are poor or low income, and these women will struggle to afford to travel to a state that allows abortions.
BTW, it says a lot about your mindset that you think it would be okay with harvesting people organs after death without their consent.
Lastly, a soul would know a termination was in the cards and not even plan to enter that body. They would go to someone else who wants a pregnancy. Steve Jobs could have been born to another set of parents.
"About your mindset that you think it would be okay with harvesting people organs after death without their consent." Untrue. Obviously there would need to be a vote however it clearly would be for the greater good. As I said 100% of dead people do not need their organs and have no desire to keep them from being used to help other people even if when they in the body they said they didn't want their organs used. With higher perspective people's choices change. Are you unable or just unwilling to see that?
"Lastly, a soul would know a termination was in the cards and not even plan to enter that body. They would go to someone else who wants a pregnancy. Steve Jobs could have been born to another set of parents." Absolute made up projection and AssUmption! We have to go on what we can prove.
We can't know that however if you want to take the most commonly accepted spiritual perspective that the soul comes in on the first breath your could guess that. However the rest of spiritual awareness says that the baby has a basic self consciousness inside the body from conception has a high self hanging around which is separate from the soul, and a separate conscious self and everything is time aligned and imprinted on that particular body.
So that Steve Jobs soul would later have a completely different looking and feeling body, a different high self, conscious self and basic self and different time alignment and different life path. The things he created as is would not have occurred as they occurred and therefore would not have existed. That was certainly HIS sense and his testimony.
You are talking about spiritual matters as if you know, but I'm the one assuming?
There is no reason to think that Steve Jobs could not have followed the same life path with different parents. The life path is not only who your parents are. The life path also has to do with personal talents you intend to have, along with certain events.
From the point-of-view of the soul, the guides who help plan your life, and the fact that there is no time, they have infinite ability to plan a life where everything comes together. They would know ahead of time that a particular woman was going to be prone to getting an abortion.
The plan involves the parent's souls too before they are born. If there is a grand plan, they can also make certain that circumstances like economic stability are present to make it easier for the parents to have children.
Furthermore you are disrespectful to me rather than just making an argument. You need to learn to play the ball NOT the man. Let go of gridiron American style handball where you get to hammer the guy without the ball. Think soccer, where you actually kick the ball and MUST play the ball, not the man or WOWman, or it's a foul!
Please argue the subject matter rather than projecting negativity and assumptions onto my personal self to try and win an argument by smearing.
I have no problem with people disagreeing with me however you better have a good on topic argument with some demonstrable evidence. Thanks.
lol no chance.... you are the one who is demonstrably limited not me. I always do my best to address and consider all viewpoints. Do you? You never address any of my points.
For example you lie and ignore the fundamental problem with your argument that a woman has the right to do what she likes with her body when the body of the child is half of the father and is it's own individual human being. You deny this fact because it's an inconvenient truth.
Further example is as a said a new life with a different physical body, high self, basic self, timeline will NEVER be the same life path. It's just impossible. You make out that the only variable is just different parents. THAT is limited.
No guides plan your life. You plan it and make agreement to your high self and soul then register it with the karmic board.
Inevitably incarnating at a different time you will complete and do different things because so many things are now different, all because a woman decided it was OK and convenient to become The Terminator!!! You could easily bring the child to term and adopt it, but nah, that's too inconvenient for you! Much more convenient just to kill it! Go girl! Brilliant! Women's Rights!
What of the child's rights and the fathers rights? You are actually very disrespectful when you look at things wholistically.
How much research I may or may not have done on "the fetal nervous system" is irrelevant. What is clear is the babies body is a separate creation and separate entity to the mother. The fact that it needs to grow inside the caretaker does NOT give the caretaker the right to kill it. If that was the case then the father would have the right to kill it also yet in law that would be murder and the man would be jailed. The above linked article shows they just don't know enough of what goes on in the consciousness of a developing child. Pain or not it's not a reason to advocate termination. The summary is assumption opinion based on lack of evidence or knowledge. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1440624/
Again, you did not read the whole article and I can tell.
Since ONLY the woman RISKS HER OWN HEALTH to reproduce, she has every right to decline risking her health.
The father NEVER risks his own health to reproduce.
There is no comparison. The woman takes on ALL the physical risk, ALL the physical discomfort, MOST of the care of a new baby, and MOST of the care during childhood and teen years, so it damn well should be HER choice. She's the one with by far the most skin in the game.
You can't tell anything Lorri. You can't even discuss the points in a logical and even minded manner. You are back being a neanderthal attacking the man rather than the subject matter (the ball) with made up projections.
It's an extremely weak argument to make out that it's a matter of health risks. What is the health rick for the child Miss Terminator? 100%. What is the health risk for the mother? Way less than 1%. Only someone with no heart, compassion or humanity would side with the killing a human being to support minimisation of a risk factor that is less than 1% over a risk factor that is 100%. Can you see how stupid that is?
Kevin, Kevin, Kevin, it is clear to me that you did not read the entire thing you linked to. It does not ultimately say what you think it says if you read to the very end.
The conclusion of that supposed study is just an opinion. It is NOT evidence based. They just don't have the evidence of pain. As they say "Without verbal reports and direct access to the mind of a fetus, inferences about what fetuses are able to experience depend on the interpretation of secondary evidence." Later there interpretation is based on lack of awareness of of what goes on inside the child and an assumption that it is not conscious. When you AssUme you make an Ass (out of) U (&) Me.
THE FOLLOWING LIST OF STRUCTURES HAVE TO BE IN PLACE TO FEEL PAIN.
"In the review, the researchers highlighted several key points in fetal development that are REQUIRED in order for a fetus to perceive pain.
ONE is that the receptors in the skin that sense an injury must be developed. Research has shown that this happens between 7.5 and 15 weeks of pregnancy, depending on the location of the receptors on the body, according to the review. For example, receptors in the skin around the mouth develop at around 7.5 weeks, whereas receptors in the skin on the abdomen develop at around 15 weeks, according to the review.
SECOND, the neurons in the spinal cord that transmit that signal up to the brain must be developed. Researchers who looked at fetal tissues reported that this happens at around 19 weeks, the review said.
THIRD, the neurons that extend from the spinal cord into the brain need to reach all the way to the area of the brain where pain is perceived. This does not occur until between 23 and 24 weeks, according to the review.
Moreover, the nerves' existence isn't enough to produce the experience of pain, the authors wrote in their review. Rather, "These anatomical structures must also be functional," the authors wrote. It's not until around 30 weeks that there is evidence of brain activity that suggests the fetus is "awake."
Davis noted that while these time frames aren't exact — some fetuses may develop a little earlier, and some fetuses may develop a little later — "there isn't any science to suggest that those pathways [for pain] are complete around the 20th week" of pregnancy.
"It's a complicated development process, and it goes in stages," Davis said.
According to a statement from ACOG, a fetus's brain and nervous system "do not have the capacity to process, recognize or feel pain during the second trimester."
Having sex is a gamble. When it produces a new life, it's your responsiblity to take care of it, not murder it because you're lazy and can't be inconvenienced. Maybe no sex until you're financially stable enough to raise a child. RESPONSIBiLITY. Imagine that.
So sex, which is part of being human, is only for people with money?
If you use birth control and it fails, your fate is sealed even though there is a safe procedure as a backup?
The word "murder" is a bit much. A fetus in early development can't think a single thought or feel any pain. Most abortions are done before 10 weeks.
The words "lazy" and "inconvenienced" are also not applicable. Pregnancy is physically risky and not being pregnant is always safer. Pregnancy exposes a woman to a long list of possible complications that can result in bodily injury or death. THIS is the reason a woman should have the right to choose.
You can't legally force someone to leave their organs to you after their death, even though it would save your life. A dead person isn't at risk of physical suffering by having their organs removed, but it's illegal unless they have signed a form agreeing to it. A pregnant woman on the other hand takes on multiple physical risks, yet you believe she should have less rights than a corpse.
Sex is a part of procreation. Hundreds of thousands of years of survival and growth, but today's spoiled couples can't be bothered to be responsible. It's much easier doing mental gymnastics to justify murder. Bring up some more fringe situation where it needs to be done. I'm talking about mass genocide of the innocent, not some one-off extreme situations. What are your feelings on the barbaric ritual infant male genital mutilation known as circumcision? Why are ignorant and irresponsible adults allowed to murder and mutilate? "Your fate is sealed" = WOW, loony much? Children are a blessing, not a curse. Don't fuck if you aren't ready to raise a child. Just because sex is shoved down our throats by the mainstream, doesn't mean it's all life is about.
I did not bring up "fringe situations", Szlachta. Why don't you read a book about the possible complications of pregnancy? I can just look at my own family members, and boy do they have stories. My mom nearly died having me. My grandmother sustained damage during her second birth that required surgery to fix. My niece just went through a very risky pregnancy that required constant monitoring. She needed a Caesarean or the doctors said they might have to break her baby's arm and shoulder to get him out. Months later, she had her gall bladder taken out - a not uncommon side effect of the birth.
Pregnancy is inherently more risky than not being pregnant.
Are you aware that pregnant women who actually want to be pregnant are also suffering because of these laws?
Texas enacted an abortion law several months ago. The Texas Tribune reported that a study asked Texas obstetricians to report on how the law has affected their practice. They were referencing women patients with wanted pregnancies.
The obstetricians said they were no longer able to provide the normal standard of care for pregnant women who developed complications. A pregnant woman with complications can deteriorate rapidly. Decisions have to be made very fast.
Texas obstetricians reported that instead of providing a life-saving abortion to patients who were rapidly going downhill, they were sending the women home - until they deteriorated to the point they developed deadly sepsis.
The doctors said they are afraid of being prosecuted if they perform the life-saving abortion too soon. Furthermore, some of the doctors couldn't find nurses and anesthesiologists willing to assist, because they too were worried about being prosecuted.
This Texas obstetrician talked on a YouTube video about what would happen if Roe v. Wade was repealed, and she predicted this would happen.
Why can't you understand that I'm talking about abortion of convenience, vs medically required. The troubles you've gone through are most likely due to coming from inferior genetic stock. Without modern medicine, these women might not have survived. Breeding while knowing about your genetic problems is irresponsible. Adoption is a better choice than condemning your own female offspring to potential life-threatening reproductive complications. I tried watching your video, but it starts with distinguising fetus from human, so the rest would be a waste of my time. Low-IQ individuals will jump through all the hoops in the world to ignore the fact that a "clump of cells" is a potential human. Killing it at any stage is still depriving it of a future. Death during pregnancy is a TINY percentage of all births. All you have is extreme fringe cases.
Stop taking the D....... if you wanna be like that. Don't try and put your choice to murder onto men. Ask the man if he would like to rare the child. Bring it to term and then adopt and/or sign off.
No, I have a 60 year marriage and with several problems we have adjusted to but my wife is my fucktoy currently. She's crazy, okay. Not a broodmare. I love kids. I wish I had had more of them.
There's a real danger of population collapse in several countries due to low birth rates. Not population explosion. There is no overpopulation. That's a myth.
What right does any man or group of men...or women...have to be placed in a position to ever judge or decide on any aspect of another woman's life? A person's life is surely their responsibility alone except in the case of a crime. How is abortion a crime if it is a decision made by a woman about her own body and her interest or willingness to proceed with an unwanted birth?
I consider it is the greatest injustice in the world today that any person anywhere can determine what happens to a woman's body. Where is the male equivalent I ask? Why hasn't there ever been any legislation preventing men from having any form of relationship with a woman without the risk of serious penalties should the woman fail pregnant. It takes two to tango. Equal responsibility is fair.
Let us see that responsibility shared.
As a crime it would vanish overnight.
And as for giving governments such authority, government's populated by arch conservatives or fanatical religious people, trying to force their outdated thinking on others, nothing could be more outdated than that.
How medieval.
It is an absolute outrage. Always has been in my book.
"Bad guys conscript young people and force them to kill and be killed against their will. Nice guys impoverish young people so they have to enlist on their own to get money.'
And rich old white men take away women's rights to abortion to control them and keep them in low paying jobs in order to feed the myriad of unwanted children fathered by sicko rich old white men like Jeffrey Epstein, Bill Clinton, and company. Future wage slaves for those who wished they could have been slave owners.
Moore v. City of East Cleveland says you have a constitutional right to live with your relatives, Thomas wants that gone. Pierce v. Society of Sisters goes back to the 20s says you have a right to raise your own children, Thomas wants that gone. This is an attack on the family. Lawrence v. Texas protects same sex conduct, Thomas has that in his crosshairs. There are a dozen or more cases like that. If it's not enumerated explicitly in the constitution, Thomas et al think it's not constitutional. Let's all go back to the signing of the constitution in 1786, shall we? These are interpretations of the guarantee of "Liberty" in the 14th and 5th Amendments. The Dobbs decision is much larger than you realize, things are going to get much worse. It's a Trojan Horse for the Right that want abortion gone because it signals a siesmic shift in other things they take for granted they don't realize is happening.
You're right. Congress hasn't done its job. But protecting the rights of minorities is not something Congress does very efficiently. It's up to the Supreme Court to interpret the meaning of words like "Liberty." It has factfinding courts below it that can take evidence and hold trials and create records. Congress doesn't do that quite as well because they weren't set up that way. It took a Civil War to redefine the relationship between the federal government and the states in the context of Civil Rights, which became our civil rights statute 42 USC 1983, which is still being fought over. The Framers deliberately chose ambiguous phrases expecting us to figure out what they meant in our current generation. Now we have a Supreme Court that has a 5 member Catholic majority, and remember what the Vatican has been saying about the eternal damnation of anyone that practices that? Is that a coincidence that the 5 member majority that voted for Dobbs were all Catholic? No non-Catholic voted for it? Is that a problem? And we have a concurring member whose wife has several conflicts of interest and Thomas refuses to recuse himself.
you mistake that the ruling is about abortion at all. that just happens to be the issue where the courts acted in violation to the constitution. i stand with the courts and the reason your "protection of minorities" doesn't work here is because the possibility of the unborn's rights being violated which makes using the 2nd derivative right of privacy completely unbased as even Ginsberg agreed.
So, you're from the FBI, right? Violence onibegets more violence. Violent revolution only brings violent parties to power. Look what the US did to Ukraine and now they have a Nazi government attacking its own people. You're an idiot.
So the other dimension of this that I haven't brought up is the influence of the Vatican on world affairs through their use of Concordats. If you want to see the ultimate authoritarian state of the kind Caitlin is talking about look no further. For the Vatican and especially the Jesuits the 500 year old counter-reformation has never gone away and they are still fighting it in this modern era. https://youtu.be/gM0PGDGcr0U
I’m not from the FBI (lol that’s what an FBI agent would say!) nor do I currently own guns. I inherited guns from my father when he passed away, and those guns are currently being held by family friends many states away. But they are mine if I ever want them back, and up until recently I had no interest. I have mental health issues and have had suicidal ideation in the past and that has been what has holding me back from exercising my second amendment rights - I’m more likely to die at my own hand than use my gun for defense or offense.
I am a queer person living in a rural but liberal state. All of this groomer talk is making me nervous. These religious nut jobs running the country are making me nervous. I’m also a non practicing Jew, who spent my entire youth learning in depth about fascism and the holocaust. My father warned me that this could happen, and the warning is coming to fruition in real time.
I’ve voted in every election from president to fucking dog catcher since I was 18. IT DOESNT MATTER. The entire system is corrupt and has been since before I was born. The only way to protect my and other marginalized people’s rights is through the barrel of a gun. Fascists only understand violence and it’s time that we speak to them in the only language they understand.
yes the system is corrupt. but in absence of it do we have a power vacuum which is far far worse. your blaming the religious is misguided. it is moderates who are offended by the rug pull of our shared heritage. the compulsory language around gender identity. the being forced to accept a disorder as natural. the sexualizing of children.
what you fail to see is that this is an arm of corruption. it took an authentic movement for equality which does not infringe on the rights of others and turned it into a radicalized agenda being pushed onto children who are not developmentally prepared to handle the topic. this is literally grooming a generation to an ideology not based in our historical shared social values, but rather driven by globalists seeking to create discord and chaos. we want you to live your life as you see fit for yourself, we just don't want you forcing us to accept a new reality that is unstable for our existing reality that served humanity for tens or hundreds of thousands of years.
Sexualizing children? For fucks sake get a fucking grip. Plenty of pedos in religious institutions preaching “family values” while raping boys and girls.
Get the fuck out of here with your homophobic fascist bullshit.
Electoralism..you mean democracy? Yeah that would be a great idea. Why don't we try that. Start by enforcing the anti trust laws and voting fraud laws.
I’m all for those reforms but it’s too fucking late.
That’s liberal brain rot in action, thinking you can dismantle the masters house with his own tools. Not going to happen and every year it becomes clearer and clearer that the only proper response to violence from the state is violence on behalf of the people against the corrupt and illegitimate state.
They would like nothing better than for you to go violent, that way they can completely cancel and discredit you. The US has been overthrowing democratically elected governments and installing puppets all around the world for a century that way. The first WTC bombing in 1983 was assisted by an FBI agent who helped construct the bomb on behalf of the pasty. It is now well known that FBI agents instigated the invasion of Congress on 1/6. We have one main problem that we are being manipulated by the Brits into doing their bidding. We need to kick these assholes out of our deep state and send a few war criminals to the gallows. Give 'em a fair trial and hang 'em.
"Easy access to safe abortions makes women much more free from male domination. It just does. And that's exactly why it is opposed." No, that's not why abortion is opposed. In fact, many women support the decision. I'm not saying I support it; that's just the way it is, and progress will not be made by setting female against male. The issue festered so long because, "As long as the powerful can make the public fight over issues which don't inconvenience power, public attention can be kept away from issues which do inconvenience power."
The overturning of Roe v Wade was not really about abortion, but rather about the court violating the constitution and removing the people's ability to self govern.
Please clarify. Are you saying the court violated the Constitution in the Roe decision itself, or in the new decision overturning it?
The new majority opinion holds that the Constitution does not give the court the power to affirm a "right to privacy" or to apply that right to pregnancy and abortion, and that the court therefor overstepped its authority in restricting the ability of states to legislate the matter.
Yes. Even Ginsberg, a staunch women's rights supporter, said the grounds for protecting women through RvW were faulty. The SCs purview is to determine the constitutionality of laws, precedential or legislative. It did not do this in RvW. It created a "right to privacy" through it's own rulings and even that was a second derivative of the 14th amendment's right to civil liberties.
Furthermore, in ruling for RvW it actually created a legislative framework for how abortion would be handled via the trimesters. This was also an overstep of their authority as it is the authority of legislatures to make such laws, not to mention put itself at odds with current medical knowledge.
This is a sad day for many women, but a good day for going back to proper balance of powers. I am hopeful that this will lead to overturning Citizens United which cited RvW's dubious use of the 14th amendment to bestow rights of natural citizens on to corporations.
I guess we should allow fratricide because Cain and Abel lived so long ago and the rule against it is so archaic. I'm not saying I want to ban abortion; I'm just pointing out how ridiculous and irrelevant your statement it. Do you disagree that the debate has been useful in the elite agenda to divide and rule by distracting us plebes from issues we can agree on, like murder from 20,000 feet?
I guess you should brush up on your comprehension of English. I did not say rules have an expiration date, I say the arguments upon which they are based were set in history. In this case, it was in a time when patriarchy was setting in.
And saying a debate is useful in distracting us doesn't mean it's unimportant when your rights are concerned
I see you don't care about making sense. But just for the entertainment, what does “the rights of people in other countries to live in peace” have to do with with anything I said?
Clearly nothing, which shows you have no empathy for other human beings and are a total narcissist. The only rights that count are your own (in some cases imagined) rights.
Last I checked this was a public forum so go fuck yourself.
I’m anti war, anti fascist, and anarchist. Fuck fascist trash. Hope you get raped and need an abortion JK it’s obvious you’re an entitled male who will never have to do anything but be a two pump chump and run.
Remember how MOVE got their entire neighborhood in Philly firebombed from the air by the FBI? Remember how the FBI massacred Bobby Seale in Chicago to stop the Black Panthers Movement? Man, where you been? It's like trying to kill an elephant with a pea shooter. Only the pen is mightier than the sword, if it's used right. But I agree our options have severely narrowed and nothing will work anymore.
To elaborate it is all about vibration. Each person spreads positive or negative vibes all day long. Each one of us is contributing to light or darkness every moment.
because when you use violence, you create justification for greater violence by a far stronger adversary. also, when you use the techniques of tyrants, you become the very tyrant you overthrew. you really need to game theory out your positions.
Whenever you have a military overthrow of a government, anywhere, it's the military that inevitably forms the new government and usually they pick someone with the same authoritarian military mindset to become a tyrant. These military juntas last for decades, as an example, Chile 9/11/73. The CIA knows well how to do this. Not a good direction to go.
I agree 100% Kanefire, very well explained. Our American Revolution was an historic anomaly in that the winners did not seize tyrannical control but voluntarily formed a representative republic, and George Washington refused an offer to become king, preferring the presidency instead. It may have had to do with the seventy years of war that preceded the Revolution and the way they all suffered at the hands of the British in the French-Indian Wars, with their terrible atrocities and wanted no part of that. And they had to appease the various states into joining. It's not likely to happen again and we shouldn't take it for granted. It's like throwing everything up for grabs.
sounds just like something I'd say. Washington gets a lot of slack for being a slaver from the youth who don't grasp the intellectual dishonesty of judging the social norms of previous generations by current values, but he was a force to be reckoned with. Richest man in America, funded the revolutionary army, led that army to victory against the preeminent military of the time, was asked to be king, but preferred a republic through an enlightened document (the constitution is biomimetic of human design, ill write about soon). He also warned us that political parties would destroy the nation. Wish we could have him back today.
Sadly the propaganda works a treat. My wife is Jewish and she believes that Putin is the devil and that the whole situation is his fault. She would not watch or listen to for instance Prof. Mersheimers talk about the prelude to the war in Ukraine nor would she read about the lies that were spread from the Ukrainian side about the supposed atrocities committed by Russian soldiers that were complete imaginations.
People need to understand that the public is being manipulated for at least the last 100 years. But most have no clue and will not take a second to think about it.
If one were to decide a position on one's ethnicity or religion, a Jewish person should oppose the Ukrainian government and the influence of Neo Nazis there. After all, it was Ukraine which completely cooperated with the German Fascist occupiers, gathered all the Jewish people and put them in concentration camps and killed 30,000 Jews in three days. This is part and parcel of the WWII substantiated history. This is not an opinion.
Civil Liberty: Other people’s bodies are nobody’s business but their own.
On the other hand, the ancient “privileges” of chattel law, adored by the bureaucratic church (and inverted by so many faithless) represent a, if not the, most remarkable (and unconstitutional) conflation of church and state. ~C.G.
If you make a point using extremes, so will I. The US has long followed English Common Law which bestows rights on the unborn at the quickening, or when the unborn is first detected moving which is about halfway through the pregnancy.
Abortion is a brutal procedure. And there is no explicit right in the Constitution protecting it. The decision should be up to the people, that is, the States.
Easy for you to say, KEVIN.
If you don’t want an abortion don’t get one. Oh wait, you’re a man.
I thought “men” could get abortions these days - all so confusing?? Maybe that’ll be next for Wokevilleans - just no abortions for people who actually have the biological ability to carry a foetus.
(I’m sure back-street abortion quack stock has risen exponentially on this awful news.)
To Kevin: How about forced vasectomies? Yeah, thought so. Tit for tat as they say.
Yep, I looking into shabby property with a nasty back ally and securing a big supply of clothes hangers.
Except nobody is forcing abortion on anyone. No medical procedure (including experimental vaccines) should be forced on any one. It's called the Nuremberg Code. Check it out.
Aww a fascist bringing out the Nuremberg code. Oh the irony.
Forcing women to stay pregnant is forcing a whole lot more than just a medical procedure.
God I’m so sick of these whiny man baby fascists.
DON’T WANT AN ABORTION, DON’T GET AN ABORTION. STOP SHOVING YOUR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS DOWN MY FUCKING THROAT. FUCK CHRISTIANITY AND FUCK JESUS’ IDIOT FOLLOWERS WHO DON’T FOLLOW ANY OF HIS TEACHINGS.
Didn't you describe yourself something like a "happily childless lesbian" elsewhere in these comments? I wish "happy" would apply not just to the "childless" attribute of your self-identification.
Yes, irony is rich in the comments section.
Some trans men still have the necessary parts to give birth. Why so ignorant? Google is free. *eyeroll*
They aren't men. Just claiming to be men. And if they have female anatomy, they are women.
First, you started off great, telling Kevin off for acting like a man should have any say in what a woman does with her body. But, then, you transition into this trans-speak. WTF, please explain how a person born with a PENIS can give birth? Jesus Christ.
You’re not getting it. TRANS MEN have female reproductive organs. They were born female and transitioned into being men with a combination of male hormones and top surgery. Some of them keep their reproductive capabilities and some don’t depending on if they still wanna have kids or not / expense and pain of surgeries (bottom surgery for FTM beyond hysterectomies are risky, expensive and painful and rarely done but ultimately nobodies business).
A famous example is Ellen page who is now Elliot page.
TRANS WOMEN are the ones who (might) still have penises because they were born male and are transitioning to women with a combination of hormones and surgeries. Breast implants, and then a variety of different bottom surgeries exist although none make it possible to have a baby in the female experience. And not all trans women fully transition, some maintain their ability to have kids in the male role of reproduction.
Nobody is saying trans women can get pregnant. The media has people so fucking riled up and ignorant that their fucking lizard brains can’t comprehend the existence of trans men with female reproductive capabilities.
I'm also a human being. Without a victim complex.
Bullshit. MAGA dorks are perpetual whiny-ass victims. "Boo hoo — they stole the election from our president who wears make up." Trump is a drag queen and you victim-in-perpetuity freaks worship him.
I hate to break this to you, but not everything's about Trump.
Lol. Stolen.
Why would you be the victim KEVIN when the only thing you have to do is pump and dump?
I think Kevin is stating a truth, abortion; the taking of the life of the most vulnerable humans, the unborn, is problematic in the extreme. It is brutal and many humans balk at it because it bothers their conscience and humanity.
The idea that the abortion procedures are there to cover the result of rape, child abuse, etc. is a polemical argument that although having some merit, that is women and girls do suffer these appalling traumas, is not representative of the vast majority of abortion on demand and abortifacient drugs used to terminate inconvenient irresponsible behaviour.
There is no solution. Which is not what many of us, I include myself here, who would like a nice binary answer to life's deep problems want to hear. The return of backstreet abortions would be horrendous. That is why Christian neutrality in politics applies here just as it does to war etc.
Mankind has no solution to these problems or what solutions he/she/they has/have is never satisfactory. So despite so-called Christians in the churches of Christendom engaging in politics, whether to campaign against abortion or for party political leaders as a hope for humans, Christ is not with them. On the contrary he told his followers to 'be no part of the world'.
I am making this point to illustrate that true Christianity would not be involved in the political process in any way despite our own Christian belief that life is sacred and begins at conception anymore than we would go onto a battlefield to try and disarm combatants.
This kind of argument only comes from MEN! If you don't want an abortion, don't get one. But, you and all the Neanderthals who wanted to eliminate legal abortions are putting our young women back in the days when they either used a coat hanger or found a butcher to do it in a back alley.
Yours is a shit argument, sorry.
I think if you actually read what I wrote you would see that I was not advocating any political involvement at all. I was showing that true Christianity does not get involved in trying to change political laws. Which is important to show as many take the reprehensible behaviour of Christendom as a reflection of what the Bible teaches. It isn't.
I SAID: 'The return of backstreet abortions would be horrendous. That is why Christian neutrality in politics applies here just as it does to war etc. '
This is a great example of how ignorant people actually are. There is nothing "brutal" about suctioning out a tiny little clump of cells that is smaller than your pinky fingernail. It's the big fad now for Men to "feel like" women and so just turn into them.
The physiological, spiritual, and sociological hubris of men having the idea that they understand or "know" anything whatsoever about what it is to be a woman is astonishing. The hubris and arrogance of men having the idea that they have a right to tell women anything about how they should live is also astonishing. What really boggles the mind is the idea that anyone who has such ignorance about the realities of abortion, medically speaking, and the ignorance of what Jesus was actually about, forget Christianity, much less the realities of being a woman forced to endure the strictures of men from the day she is born until the day she dies, in a world where we've NEVER SEEN, in Western culture, a truly free female for thousands of years, talking about how there is "no solution," and telling us what "true Christianity" is, and what we ought to think, from his own ignorant and rather fascistic ideas about all of the above mentioned, much less try and TELL WOMEN WHAT IS CORRECT BEHAVIOR... That's rich, coming from someone who then talks about going onto a battlefield and trying to disarm combatants. HELLO.
MEN are the ones who make WAR, and cause things like the GENOCIDE we're watching right now, that threaten the very SPECIES they should be protecting. MEN are the ones who created NUCLEAR WEAPONS, and MEN are the ones who have caused the suffering and death of THOUSANDS OF BABIES AND CHILDREN with their wars and their toxins and their synthetic pesticides and fake medicines. Yeah, a token woman here and there gets in on the horror, but it's MOSTLY MEN. And when there are wars, MEN have traditionally gone to the "enemy" and RAPED THEIR WOMEN, even GIRLS.
I don't think MEN need to be lecturing WOMEN about a damn thing. And if you had ONE CLUE about the medical realities of abortion, you'd shut the hell up.
The fact is, it's time for MEN to get a little tiny bit of self-awareness and realize that WOMEN are not theirs to control, nor are WOMEN their belongings, their servants, nor their underlings. If you understood what Jesus actually represents, and what he usurped via other men's writing, then you'd be one step ahead of the rest of men, generally speaking.
I should clarify: Not all MEN are warmongering jerks. I know this! But there seem to be a lot of them that ARE in positions of power...
And yet many women are anti abortion. My mother a nurse in the 1950's refused to help with abortions although she has always identified as a feminist because of her conscience. I agree men have absolutely no right to control women or each other for that matter. But no one should infringe upon another's conscience. The debate about the ethics of abortion is not about male or female. However, the implementation of political/judicial rulings on abortion may well be. It is important to make the distinction.
The easy solution is to mind your own fucking business
Being abusive to shut down debate is indeed easy but it is not a solution.
You wokers are funny when you are losing a discussion. What I see is an exerburence of histrionics about the issue from the abortion with very little real reason for taking responsibility and stopping the dismemberment of a human being. Your response does not help your cause.
So you're admitting that abortion really benefits the male patriarchy and encourages abuse of women. You should probably think about your arguments before you release them.
I'm sorry that you were abused. But I wasn't the one who did it.
Are you mad because he is constitutionally accurate?
LOL You've aired your ignorance enough, now you're going to bring up the Constitution? HA HA. Let's go.
I know it's early, but "Kevin" has the most likes on this thread. Uh-oh.
Probably an army of his misogynist friends out trolling.
No misogyny here. That is YOUR projection.
Special Operations
I’ve noticed that the fascist sympathizers have taken to left wing sub stacks critical of liberalism. They’re so close...
Exactly. I've noticed that some of these venues even cater to that audience and dollar.
*Cough* Glenn Greenwald *cough*
That's because he's hiding behind a screen of being "reasonable." Lots of tyrants do the same.
So being reasonable is secret code for being a tyrant? Logically then, tyrannical behavior must be reasonable.
Totally explains the comments section.
Caitlin states in this same post:
"There are fake partisan diversions designed to keep people chasing their tails instead of focusing on real issues, and then there are real agendas which are of high value to the empire."
And she gets perfect illustration in the comments.
I think Caitlin is right. But abortion is a special category. It's a useful distraction, but also very important.
Except for the fact that men have been controlling women for millennia and this is just another of those controls.
You're asserting that you're being "reasonable"?
Are you?
according to Google and the authorities men can now have babies.....
The irony! You've got people responding that supposedly come to Caitlin's forum for free exchange of ideas. As soon as they find a poster they don't like their spirit just evaporates.
Yep! Disappointing, to say the least. The comments section is essentially one big "I stand with Ukraine" sticker.
How is opposing the recent Supreme Court decision overturning Roe v Wade equivalent to "I stand with Ukraine"? If you read Caitlin's article, she too believes this strike down of women's rights appalling.
Or do you only comprehend what you want to?
As I was the original thread "continuer" I can try to clarify. The issue is not disagreeing. The issue is such a religious adherence that causes going after a person behind the challenging point of view rather than debating it.
"The irony" of someone disagreeing with catlin and posting about it....and you ignorantly thinking that isn't "the free exchange of ideas".
This is what substack is all about, junior.
There are arguments and "arguments". Read the responses and try to tell the difference. Yours belongs to the latter category while you claim to be a "senior". More irony.
Didn't see that your comment was in response to intolerance of free thinking. Apologies. I'm still your senior though.
Since you've deleted your first knee-jerk response I'll bring it up here, in full:
"Yes, yours is a pathetic "argument" to attempt to belittle an argument that was better than yours. Much like alanis morrissette, you don't quite understand the definition of the word 'irony'."
The reason I did is I was about to answer that I prefer julio iglesias's understanding.
Hmmmm. Strange how fascist ideology isn't well-liked.
Considering the overwhelming support for "vaccine" fascism over the past year and a half....I'd say you're wrong unfortunately..
Absolutely. Many of the "my body my choice" crowd were trying to force people to take experimental injections. Just one year ago!
I am "my body, my choice" and I also am anti Covid vax.
Your point, again?
I know, I know!! "My way or the highway, women!"
Now, I'm arf to the highway... ;)
So... That means you're right? LOLOLOL
This isn't about being "right". It's about addressing a vital issue in US society. I believe the best solution is to allow the people of each State to decide what's best for them.
Hey everybody, in case you didn't know, abortion is highly contagious and the world has been experiencing an abortion pandemic.
I'd say those people are brainwashed. Two different situations, logical fallacy.
There is nothing free about forcing women to carry rape babies to term. That's not a free idea Mr. FBI man.
And you know from personal experience it's a "brutal procedure", Kevin? After a rape, most women find the procedure freeing and say that it helps them heal from the psychological trauma. So, what's more "brutal"--having an abortion or letting women suffer lifelong trauma from a forced pregnancy and birth? (I suspect, as a righteous male, you will say it's "God's will" that women who are raped or suffer incest deserve to suffer trauma. You probably thank God for being born the "superior" sex, too.)
When an unborn creature is pulled apart, limb from limb, it's most definitely a brutal procedure. And certainly nothing to be celebrated. The only sense of self-righteousness I see here is coming from you.
BTW, over half of abortions are before 10 weeks and done via PILLS.
It's still murder of an human being individual separate from the mother's body.
Do you realize, that in the early stages of pregnancy, a fetus is not yet developed enough to think or sense pain? And the vast majority of abortions are performed before 10 weeks?
Now if you are talking about the fetus reaching the threshold of feeling pain, then that would indeed be brutal without anesthesia.
It stands to reason the baby in the womb has some form of consciousness we just don't have the technology to read it currently and likely would need to use spiritual tools to read it. None the less whether it is painful or not you are killing that human being. That is what it is an INDEPENDENT SEPARATE HUMAN BEING to the mother. It's a creation of the father's seed and the mother's ovum. it's NOT part of the woman's body.
Do you remember being a fetus? Does the lying ass government ever tell you the truth about anything? Would they tell you if a fetus feels pain? They mostly think we are useless eaters.
Why do you think scientists don't know when the nervous system of a fetus is fully formed? It is not guesswork.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/do-fetuses-feel-pain-what-the-science-says/
If you had even a rudimentary knowledge of physiology, you'd know that with a BRAIN or developed NERVOUS SYSTEM, there is no pain.
Well and the women that are looking for guilt relief and justification for being The Terminator earlier in their lives and who want to use it again as contraception so they can have sex with no responsibility in the creative act.
Get educated, son. Your imagination is not necessarily REALITY.
Listen to/read Ron Paul on abortion and tell us he was uneducated and imagining things.
I have and I don't recall what the gestation timing was. Do you? Wasn't he talking about a very late-term abortion?
What is more brutal, I wonder: Choosing when and with whom and how to have and raise children, or raising them unwanted, in poverty probably, deprived of a father, likely-- while the daddy just disappears... Does anyone care about that child? I mean, THOSE children? Who's got stats on how many children go to bed hungry in the USA? Oh, I think it's ONE IN FIVE. But that tiny little blob of cells is a BABY, being "pulled limb from limb." FFS.
So it's better to be dead than poor? That's incredibly materialistic. Some of our greatest contributors to society came from poverty-stricken backgrounds.
Rape is the read herring issue trotted out as the one main reason for legal abortion. Women do get raped. So how many and how many rape victims get pregnant? So it is kind of a weak argument. Because we all know that unprotected sex is a risk and I bet the numbers show, most abortions are matters of convenience, not violence. We play word games over an issue. Tell the truth. It is as ugly as rape. Women and men dont give a fuck so long as they can get their next high. Bedroom, drugs, alcohol, food. The dead dismembered baby is mostly an aftermath and a consequence of some human behavior. Our ability to deal or not capable of dealing with our responsibilities is the true problem.
The numbers show that 3/4 of women seeking abortions are poor or low-income.
So your bet that most abortions are "matters of convenience" is crazy.
Had any of these posters actually bothered to ask me my position on this issue, I would have discussed it with them. It looks like they'd rather yell and label and threaten instead. Too bad.
Rape is the ultimate violation of choice. A person who is raped is not responsible for becoming pregnant. They never got the opportunity to make the choice. And since they didn't make the choice, they should not be held responsible for the outcome.
As such, I would have a mechanism in place, in States that ban abortion, to allow women who have been raped to get an abortion. It wouldn't require any police report, or a report to any authority at all. Simply a signed, written statement that she was raped. After the abortion is completed, that written statement would be shredded in front of her.
If men actually did get pregnant this would not be an issue.
If there was better birth control especially for men this would not be an issue.
If people really believed my body my choice this would not be an issue (and neither would vaccine passports or mandates).
If we did not have 5 Catholic Justices or two on the bench because of republican hypocrisy this would not be an issue.
If people had the consciousness to know that there are about 8 billion different belief systems in the world like many believe the soul enters the body at birth this would not be an issue. (If people respected other people and their beliefs)
If the Christian inquisitors and their descendants had not brutally murdered women healers who knew how to end unwanted pregnancies with herbs this might not be an issue.
If those against terminating unwanted pregnancies were required to collectively pay for the care of the babies they think they are saving this would not be an issue.
If only...
I thought of another...
If rich women could not travel to another state to get an abortion this would not be an issue
Don't leave out monetary rewards for political chicanery....
But-- You're wasting your time with these little boys on here. This is why Patriarchy sucks. Men and brainwashed little boys don't understand enough of the world, and don't have the capacity for it anyway... This is why we have war pretty much all the time. So... let 'em soak in their own ignorant bile. We're not finished. We'll let them yammer and deal with this like grownups.
The baby is NOT the mothers body by definition as it's a separate being that was created with the father's seed. What of the the child's rights and the fathers rights? You trivialise them with your lie that the child is the mothers body.
I'm not willing to stipulate Roman Catholics, Jesuits, or Black Nobility be "Christian". That word is very poorly defined; I might go so far as to say deliberately misdefined. (Should mean "caring".)
Whether or not you are willing there are 5 Catholic Justices and the Inquisitors who murdered maybe millions are all called Christians along with those who murdered actual living breathing babies like the Crusaders and don't forget all the wars between Christians nor the colonization and enslavement of millions.
No. Substitute "Christians" for "Jews" in Rev 2:9 and 3:9.
Found the antisemite. Catholics are the original Christians.
So you say. VICarIVs fILII DeI is the 666 beast. Just go on boasting of how famous you are - actual meaning of "semite". Roman Catholics lie about the meaning of "christian". No, it isn't your vaunted charism, though you likely have a charagma. And you've grossly distorted "u es Petrus et super hang petram aedificabo ecclesiam mean et tibi dabo claves caelorum". Hey, I'd long wondered why Catholics and Hofjuden have such a long-running good cop-bad cop act.
I read the Bible a long time ago and no longer have a copy. What argument are you trying to make?
How are you reading this substack? Plenty of online Bibles. I usually use https://www.blueletterbible.org/ though sometimes others. I think I made it already. Most "christians" are fake. The word shares etymology with Cyrus. It does not mean "anointed" (with the Holy Spirit) as the Catholics (which properly also includes most other denominations; just see if they use a Bible based on the Vulgate) claim.
... my grandma had balls she'd be my grandpa.
If you had a brain you wouldn't have written that
Wrong thread. The "If only ..." was asked one level up.
So I'm right. You have no brain
You're a master logician having your pussyhat pointing in the wrong direction. Once you adjust it you'll figure out levels. I'm sure of that.
The worst argument I read below was about not having sex if you do not want to get pregnant. Really?
That wasn't what I said. You know it's a creative act that is why it is exciting and pleasurable. You must accept that even using the best contraception that if you take the D as a woman you might get pregnant. It's a fact. However you just don't want to be responsible for that and your lie that the child is a part of the woman's body. It's NOT! it's half the father's body and it's wholly the child's body which is a separate entity. The mother is just a caretaker.
The States are the people? How about the individuals?
Are we playing word games now?
I see you don't mind looking stupid to maintain your bad faith
And I see insults are the way you maintain yours. State legislatures are elected directly by individuals. The person who gets a majority of the vote wins the election. It is democracy in its most concentrated form, at least in this system.
So if individuals want to see unlimited abortions, up to and beyond birth, they can elect reps and senators who will make that happen. They can also choose to lobby and influence said congress people, or even run for office themselves.
Of course, all of this requires said individuals to actually study the issues, learn the system of government, and apply said knowledge in steady and consistent manner.
If you view describing your behaviour as an insult, it should tell you something. You know damn well protecting individual rights is not the same as relinquishing them to the States, so your statement about word games is so clearly bad faith that it looks stupid
The point that you refuse to acknowledge, and that you are still playing word games with: The States ARE the people.
Well said. Seems to me ALL fascism is stupid. And if there were something that threatened ONLY men with something fascist and/or intrusive, unfair, etc., I would DEFEND the men's rights, too! Thanks.
Your entire approach to women is an insult.
If you want to see "abortions beyond birth" at an end, then you should be out in the streets protesting WAR. Your ignorance is what rules your mind, and that's also insulting.
Have you bothered to ask me my position on war? Or are you too busy labeling me to do that?
No, we seem to be trying to educate a very obnoxious fascist.
I heard the word and there is no fascism here......
Looks to me like the children are basically trying to run this. I don't feel like this topic is really well-understood by children and it's inappropriate anyway, since children don't understand adult life. Sooooo, bye.
Don't bother trying to educated these children, asher. Let it go. We grownups will deal with the grownup issues on our own...
Well I am accurate. There was no one pushing fascism that I have seen in all these threads. You are inaccurate as you are insultingly name calling me. Your arguments are fundamentally and demonstrably lies. When the debate is lost, slander (and/or libel) becomes the tool of the loser. Socrates.
Define fascist.
Look in the fucking mirror.
Just checked. Still no fascists! Or Russian hackers.
I can understand your anger directed at the mirror. Your pussyhat is oriented incorrectly.
I think the point is that if questions of privacy and abortion are retained by the people, then you could have individuals make the decisions, or the people's voices could be manifest by state legislatures or by the Federal legislature.
I think we automatically assume state legislatures because this fight has been going on in the courts, and in that context we're talking about competing state laws (that's how the cases get to SCOTUS).
But it's not a word game to consider all of the potential ways the people's voice could be manifest.
The State Legislatures are elected directly by the people. By a majority vote. Which means that if a majority of the people of any State want abortion, they will have it. See California as a perfect example of this.
This is the way the Republic was originally designed. The "One Size Fits All" approach, where the federal government attempts to dictate reality to all States, doesn't work. It's actually destroying the nation. The People need to be the ones calling the shots. And, in our system, that means the States.
Well now you've moved on to make a separate claim, not one about courts versus the people.
No. What you're advocating is for the power of the States to deny the right of individuals to choose
What I'm advocating is for individuals to get involved with their State legislatures. Because, moving forward, that's where the power in this system will reside.
Kevin just donated his entire income and wealth to caring for unwanted children, isn't much, but there it is. Oh, wait... what a shite.
Of course he'll donate all his income and wealth to take care of the children. If one calls oneself "Pro-Life" then you can't just force women to bring children into the world who can't afford them. You'll provide food, shelter, clothing and education for ALL of them. Thank you for your generosity!! (What's that? Did I hear the door slamming in the background and Kevin crawling into his sports car and racing away to get out of his responsibilities toward all these poor kids?)
I donated my sperm....
Do you have a uterus? Then shut the fuck up. Let women make up their own mind, eh. Besides, safe abortion procedures weren't invented at the time of the signing of the Bill of Rights. Peace
Abortion has been around for centuries. Part of the decision from the SC was based on English Common Law. And England's approach to abortion. Feed your head. Dig?
Kevin, I agree with you to a point. Late-stage abortion is indeed brutal and should only be undertaken in the rarest cases to save the life of a woman. But for tens of millions of American women, safe, legal, early abortion is actually merciful. A wise and merciful people would understand that. A wise and merciful people would make safe contraception affordable and readily available so that abortion would be rare. They would enact nationalized healthcare so pregnant women, infants and children (and of course men too) would always have access to high quality affordable medical care. A wise and merciful people would prioritize affordable housing so pregnant women, infants, and children (and men) would always have safe homes. But that is not what Americans do (and liberal politicians are as much to blame in this regards as conservatives) and so Caitlin is proven right: making abortion illegal is about controlling women and NOT about caring for women, fetuses, and babies; the issue of abortion is used by both parties to keep people fighting among ourselves instead of finding common ground and challenging power. We are not a wise people. We are certainly not merciful.
Any stage abortion is brutal as you are killing a child that is a separate individual entity. However you just don't want to be responsible for that and you lie that the child is a part of the woman's body. It's NOT! It's half the father's body and it's wholly the child's body which is a separate individual. The mother is just a caretaker.
I'm not sure how destroying tens of millions of unborn human beings is wise or merciful. But I do agree that birth control should be available to every woman, for free or at very low cost. If the goal is women's empowerment, and control over her reproductive system, that is the easiest solution out there.
Thank you for your reply. I appreciate, and respect, your perspective. In our brief exchange you and I have demonstrated an ability to find common ground. And that is what we need as a country and people. It isn't necessary or even desirable that we all hold the same beliefs and opinions. But it is necessary that we find reasonable compromise to our most intransigent and polarizing problems. There is wisdom and mercy in that. Again, I thank you and wish you well.
Likewise. And thanks for asking me about my thoughts. It was a good exchange.
While the current buzz and screaming is about US law this is an international global issue. I would say that if it is not legal or protected in a countries constitution that states should not have the opportunity to make legislation that is likely contrary to the constitution of that country.
How do you feel about the death penalty, Kevin?
Personally, I believe it should be used on very rare occasions. For example: People who are serial killers, child killers, mass murderers, etc.
Sure there is. The Constitution goes still further, requiring a federal permit for birth from the Congress (not "the people"). Article I Section 8: "To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization". Perhaps overblown, but so's your "brutal procedure". Just lay off your forced birthing to provide cannon fodder.
According to the Law of Rob, 11 likes and counting means you must be right. Who are these people with all these likes? They're dingleberries stuck to Trump's asshole, that's who and what they are.
I appreciate you threatening my life for making a substack post.
Good, be fucking scared. It’s about time fascists get a taste of their own medicine. You can regulate me over my dead fucking body.
Can you define "fascist"?
Umberto eco does a great fucking job, google is FREE
Go jerk off fascist incel trash
"Go jerk off fascist incel trash" - that just flew off your tongue and suggests intimate relationship with and close familiarity of. Can you describe the notion/process?
Huh?
Playing dumb won't stop what's coming.
Just because you can't articulate yourself properly doesn't mean others are "playing dumb". You simply don't make sense.
Ever see A Fish Called Wanda?
People will have french fries inserted into their nostrils?
U.S. sanctions around the world starving and killing men, women and children.
From fair.org -- Lesley Stahl on U.S. sanctions against Iraq: We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that’s more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?
Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: I think this is a very hard choice, but the price–we think the price is worth it.
—60 Minutes (5/12/96)
….and where are the complaints or protests from these Catholics on those evil actions?
They’re pro forced birth, even in cases of rape, incest, or harming the mother.
They are not pro life by any stretch of the imagination.
It's all about making rapists great again. These states have horrific infant mortality rates so instead of a first trimester abortion they would prefer mother and child die in the trauma of birth since they won't allocate any resources for safe healthy neonatal care for those who can't afford it and if the mother and child are lucky enough to make it through that harrowing crucible, there is a life of poverty and prison and/or street violence to look forward to as the reward for toughing it out. These people are the devil.
The irony for me was reading an online newspaper about Roe v. Wade being overturned, and right across the page was an article about a man arrested for meeting women online and taking them to a parking lot and raping them after they met in person.
The authorities suspect he has victims all over the country.
Roe vs Wade did not make abortion illegal. It left the decision to the individual state.
Over half the states are outlawing abortion. Some of them are outlawing it even if the woman became pregnant from rape or abuse, which is cruel.
If the woman is poor, and 3/4 of women seeking abortions are poor or low-income, she is already having a hard time scraping together the money for the abortion, let alone the time off and funds to travel however far she needs to go. And time is of the essence.
In Texas, all the surrounding states are banning abortion except for New Mexico. It's a long drive to New Mexico and it will be a long drive to get past all the other states also banning it.
To make matters worse, one of the representatives in Texas is sending "cease and desist" letters to advocacy groups who were giving funds to poor women so they could travel. These letters state that giving travel funds to these poor women is against a pre-Roe law still on the books in Texas. This representative has vowed to go after the advocacy groups.
For women with little money, this is effectively almost just as good as making it illegal.
Well said. Exactly.
When we view so much of the debauchery today being leveled from a class perspective, it makes total malevolent sense. This is first and foremost about class and secondarily about patriarchy. Oligarchies are, or have historically been and still are, patriarchal.
Which states have horrific infant mortality rates? This is hysterical nonsense. Every baby born goes to a life of poverty and prison? C'mon.
My argument to that is that every child born in the USA has an opportunity to be president of the USA. They have an opportunity to be all they can be. That is true. Ask Barrack Obama.
Murder is Murder no matter how you try and justify it.
Dear Caitlin, I love your newsletter. I'm obsessed with your intense, eye-opening, sometimes terrifying takes on things — war stuff, government corruption and evil — which before this year I did not think I could possibly be interested in. You, Mike Cernovich, and Glenn Greenwald are tied as my three favorite people online. I'm writing this to you because I like you so much! Also I'm not very active on social media, so maybe I am just using this as my outlet to vent. Sorry not sorry!
What I saw happen today was that a shoddy and overreaching precedent was rightly disposed of (just as we eventually disposed of some other insane decisions that our freaky SCOTUS gave us over the years). Now a healthy (and probably long and ugly) debate can ensue about what limits and laws we the people can compromise on.
I admit to a certain callousness and a blind spot, as I don’t personally know any women who have been in that abusive situation you describe — where they need an abortion for their own safety from their partner. My heart would break if I did know that person and I would do everything I could to help her, but there are still other solutions than abortion. Perhaps none of them are easy peasy lemon squeezy, but life isn't easy. Saving a life is worth sacrifice. (Plus, if they are in abusive relationships it sounds like their life is not all that easy anyway...?) I would also argue that making the decision to have the baby and protect it from their abusive dude might be the impetus they needed to escape their bad situation. A net good after a huge initial hardship. I'm not minimizing how difficult that would be, but just because something is really really difficult doesn’t mean you shouldn’t do it.
On the flip side, I suspect it’s equally, if not more common for women to be pressured by boyfriends and husbands and families to have abortions. Abortions they would not have chosen if they felt they had true freedom to decide. These women are not free. They do not have a “choice” (in their mind.) They “choose” abortions because they feel force and pressure from their loved ones, with the weight of the whole of society backing it up and bearing down on them. I have been tempted to have an abortion myself, simply to avoid embarrassment! That's how pervasive the culture of death is (and how weak and insecure I am, but that's another story) — that I would think of ending a human life, that I myself helped create, just to save myself some trouble in telling my family I had a one-night-stand.
Being pro-life 100%, I will never feel at peace until there are no abortions, no death penalties, etc. … but I can at least be ok at the civil level with the limits Americans decide on for abortion. What was never ok was that a group of old '70s dudes with a god complex passed legislation from the bench that took away our right to hash out our own laws on this issue.
Further note: watch Dave Portnoy’s video denouncing the overturn. What a true feminist that man is. I couldn’t help but think “Now there’s a guy with a conflict of interest…" Of course HE wants ladies to be able to have all the abortions they want.
The founding fathers specifically wanted to avoid a pure democracy because it gives voters too much power to oppress some people, if they can garner enough votes to do so. Therefore, they created a republic rather than a pure democracy.
The justices that sit on the Supreme Court are supposed to prevent a mob democracy from voting to take away rights and liberties from some people, by affirming rights given to citizens by the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
By overturning Roe v. Wade, they failed miserably.
Here are some of the opinions written by the dissenting justices on why overturning Roe v. Wade is a big mistake. They are well worth reading.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/roe-wade-scotus-liberal-justices-dissent-overturn-172434373.html
The objection is based on the assumption that the child or fetus is the woman’s body and, therefore, under her control and choice. If the probability and possibility of growing separate sentient life created as a research of the father’s sperm merging with the mother’s ovum, creating new human life that is separate from the mother despite requiring the mother to continue to house and nurture the child for 9 months is accepted, then all claims and legal angles are defunct. What of the child’s rights? Are the father’s rights not equal to the mother's rights? Surely, a child's rights usurp the mother's and father's rights and should be paramount.
This comment I agree with for the most part and it's a strong argument — the closest that comes to swaying me. However, reasonable people will always disagree at where that line is — where democracy’s raw power ends and the court’s should begin. I tend to think the court has always granted itself too much power and I will almost always favor reversals of that. The fact that we all know exactly what liberal justices will rule EVERY time shows that they do not have legitimacy in making objective, nonpartisan decisions. Some might say the same about conservative justices (although in my lifetime I have seen only conservative justices who are willing to rule unpredictably). And even if BOTH sides always rule predictably and partisanly — that shows exactly why the court’s power should be extremely limited.
I just read two disturbing Instagram posts.
One was from a nurse in a state where their trigger law went into effect immediately. A woman came in with an ectopic pregnancy. I don't take for granted that men know what that means, so I apologize if you already know, but it means the fertilized egg stayed in the fallopian tube and started growing there instead of the uterus. It's deadly.
The doctor went to consult a lawyer because he didn't want to lose his license. While the patient was waiting, her ectopic pregnancy ruptured. Yet she had to WAIT NINE HOURS for her procedure because the doctor was still with the attorney. By the time she had her procedure done, she had 600 cc of blood in her abdomen and almost died. The nurses were crying and they're scared of going through this again without being to do anything about it.
The second Instagram post was from a doctor who diagnoses high risk pregnancies. He's in Ohio and abortions for "LETHAL" fetal anomalies are now illegal. He said someday soon he will have to "look someone in the eyes, and tell them that they, against their will, will carry to term, undergo delivery, and then have their child die."
This overturning Roe v. Wade is working out so well. :(
Thank you for this comment. I'm horrified by both of these situations, if they happened, and I hope there will be legislation to do away with those extreme examples. (I am a woman, btw.) Doctors should never put a life-saving surgery on hold to consult a lawyer, my goodness.
I think a lot of these new laws are badly written. The anti-abortion legislators seem to be allergic to consulting doctors when they are writing them.
Poland banned abortions about a year or so ago. It didn't take long before they had three women die because the hospitals were so afraid of performing an abortion to save their lives. They insisted they could not do it until there was no heartbeat. All three women went septic and died.
There were major protests in Poland over it.
I think the rationale for striking down Roe v Wade was a legal/constitutional one (as I understand it from the other side of the pond.) The constitution does not provide a legal right to abortion any more than any other medical procedure and so it cannot stand. No other country attempts to embed it in this way as a right and seem to manage perfectly well. It does not prevent women having abortions. Federally a law could be brought in to make terminations illegal after a certain duration but whether a termination is appropriate is a matter for clinicians etc. Perhaps this will allow the horribly polarosed debate to arrive at a comprpmise. Irreconcilable absolutists on both ends should accept this as adults in a polity. What is notable is that RvW was a money spinner for the Dems; millions of dollars of donations exclusively to them via RvW based Planned Parenthood now cut off. Follow the money.
Here is information you may not have considered. The link below details the dissenting opinions of the justices who didn't agree with overturning Roe v. Wade.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/roe-wade-scotus-liberal-justices-dissent-overturn-172434373.html
That the Constitution and Bill of Rights does not name "abortion" as a right, isn't really an argument. When they guaranteed the right to personal liberty and privacy, they did not enumerate in detail which personal liberties we could have or not have. The gist is that we have liberty to make personal decisions as long as we don't trample on another person's personal liberty.
A fetus is not capable of thought or pain in the early stages of pregnancy, and most abortions are performed before 10 weeks. Pregnancy will always be more dangerous than not being pregnant. There are all sorts of physical complications that carry the risk of injury or death.
You may not compel anyone to give you their organs after their death, no matter how much you need them to save your life. They must volunteer to donate them, even though they would hardly miss them. To compel a woman to take on the physical risk of pregnancy, is to say she has less rights over her body than a corpse.
We are a republic and not a pure democracy. The Supreme Court is supposed to protect us from the majority voting to suppress the rights and liberties of others.
How do you know what a fetus feels? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1440624/
I had the same argument with a hunter who said a cow in a slaughterhouse does not know what is happening. That is easily proven wrong by the reaction of any animal facing death.
If a women wants a abortion that woman should be informed of the experience the life inside of her is experiencing. The bond between mother and child is developed from conception.
You did not finish reading that link because it ultimately does not say what you think it says.
Also, you are comparing a cow with a completely developed nervous system to a fetus in early development without a developed nervous system.
Most abortions are performed before 10 weeks, and I can assure you there is zero capacity to feel anything at that stage. All the structures and linkages needed are just not there yet.
And that's what a scientist or doctor would inform a woman of. They are not going to tell her anything different no matter what you think.
Look, I support outlawing abortions at the point the fetus can feel pain (except to save the life of the mother and they can use anesthesia for the fetus). But nearly zero abortions are performed at that stage, so it's a non-problem!
My view was deliberately above the issue where rights arguments are on both sides and the differences are insoluble. SCOTUS says it is not a right and they are the authority on that and that's that. I am with Naomi Wolfe on this. https://naomiwolf.substack.com/p/on-losing-roe While of a pro-choice background, she quotes from and supports the clearly considered and thoughtful judgement that this issue must be returned to the legislatures where the public can debate and resolve their differences in the public space. That the stikedown is not a ban in itself as some say is evident from whether states have either banned or not banned. The right is no longer relevant or helpful, whether it was in the 70's. The right and the legality are different. America has a superb system of balanced federal and state powers, the best in the world. The sudden illegal/legal binary state is just the start of a new debate and I am sure the democratic process will lead to a better and consensus situation than the rights as weapon situation. This is not the 70's. The states can decide, democratically through debate and vote as should be the case and I have faith that America will be the better for it.
I used to support you Caitlin however this is a very poor and low consciousness bad analogy. It has nothing to do with Jesus as you suggest.
"I wanted to meet my biological mother mostly to see if she was OK and to thank her, because I'm glad I didn't end up as an abortion. She was twenty-three and she went through a lot to have me."
Steve Jobs.
The world would be very different if Jobs was an abortion. Gates admitted to copying the Macintosh substantially for his coders to create Windows. There would be no iPhone and likely no Android. The Google head Eric was on the Apple board and got all his inspiration from Apple. Job's children would never have been born. I think they are glad they were born. And so on...
You know what drives the abortion trade? Super valuable parts like stem cells from the fetuses that you can't get easily from anywhere else. The longer the age of the child in utero the more valuable the harvest! Hence laws changing on that in the past decade or so.
My choice my body works ethically on DNA/mRNA new tech jabs as it's an assault on one's own body if mandatory to hold a job and live.
My choice my body doesn't work ethically in regards to abortion as the child is a sentient being created by both the father's seed and the mother's egg residing temporarily in the mother's body and it's an assault on the child. The mother didn’t create this child on her own. Get the child's signature and permission before you proceed thanks!
Are there any other men here who have found out later that a WoWman terminated your child without even telling you she was pregnant and you would have happily cared for the child, no child support needed or demanded? If you take the D, a creative act, be prepared for the consequences. Even using contraceptives they are at best 97% effective which means 34 lovemaking sessions = one baby. I have been known to complete 6 lovemaking sessions a day. Obviously, the woman needs to be ovulating.
I admit rape and other medical issues bring up other ethical and psychological concerns. I am talking about a child made in Love.
A fetus has no thoughts or ability to feel pain in the early stages of pregnancy. Most abortions are performed before 10 weeks.
Pregnancy is inherently a more risky physical condition than not being pregnant, with multiple possible complications including possible death. THIS is the reason the decision belongs to the woman. The man never risks his life in pregnancy.
You can't compel someone to give you their organs once they are deceased without their permission. Pro-lifers want women to have fewer bodily rights than a corpse.
That's meant to be a retort? For one it's a baseless argument. There is no definitive studies that show "a fetus has no thoughts or ability to feel pain in the early stages of pregnancy"! There might be a funded scientist stating an opinion that is so with no solid evidence of that or comprehensive data. How could you get inside the consciousness of a human baby in the early stages of it's development?
Two, you never countered my valid point that the child's body is NOT a part of the woman's body; it is a creation of the fathers sperm and the mother's ovum. There is not one person in the world, apart from those currently going through suicidal or insane thoughts, who would say "I wish I was an abortion". Steve Job's testimony is a classic case point as I alluded to. So to argue that one medical operation, that would kill the child, is ok because there is a very slight risk of death bringing the pregnancy to term is like justifying murder because the targeted person might commit a crime in the future. Yes it's a very remote possibility however murder shouldn't be sanctioned.
Women's liberation and rights don't give you a right to end a child's life in it's early stages. You had sex, a creative act, with full knowledge that you might have a child. You want to have the passionate feelings, climax and sensations and then if the final outcome isn't what you desire you want to become The Terminator? Charming.
It's like a science fiction drug addict addickted to a drug that has a small chance to create a baby inside a female but not a male and then women demanding that they have the right to consume that drug, and then terminate the child if they become pregnant because they want the same outcome as men, get the high, with no pregnancy. Well our western society makes men responsible even when they are not. It's called child support. Why do women expect everything there way yet demand "equality"? Like when they go to a male strip show it's "women's liberation" and is celebrated as empowerment but when a man goes he's a slease bag low life and shamed?
Three, the organ donation comparison is incomparable as those organs can't live a life of their own and can't be used after death by the person who died. Also organ's are part of a persona body a child is not it is something individual that is made by two people inside a woman's womb.
While we are on the that completely separate topic I would say personally I would be OK with a law that all organs are donated if they are viable whether people signed or not. What are people going to do with this after death anyway? The dead don't care after death even if they said they did during their earlier life. Only their families could get upset if they chose to look at it as a violation of their relative's body. That viewpoint is a poor choice. People in time would learn to choose a more elevated viewpoint that supports the enhancement of society.
We are not our physical bodies. We all have spirits or souls even if you are an atheist. Something leaves when a person dies. If it was just chemistry that energy would manifest in heat or some other physical measurable form but it doesn't. Why? Because the energy that powers life, consciousness, unconscious thought, feelings, imagination, and spirit is energy that is not physical and not physical chemistry. I would argue that is spiritual.
Spirituality just is. It is no religion. It's not about Jesus or a version of Christianity that is subscribed to by various people as suggested by Caitlin. If that is possibly true then when you become The Terminator you kill that soul or spirits opportunity as well as it's body. Did you ever consider that? You kill Steve Job's life and all he created in this world that has a multiplier effect like his children, like the thousands of jobs Jobs created etc. DEAD.
Finally I am an AU/UK dual citizen, not American, however as I understand it abortion is currently still legal in USA up to 15 weeks. Why are you screaming for the ability to terminate after 15 weeks, which is 38% of full term or nearly 4 months? You demand more women's rights? I am rather amazed.
How much research have you done about what scientists know about the development of the fetal nervous system. It's clear that the answer is "ZERO".
The fetus REQUIRES living inside the mother to exist. Pregnancy is inherently physically risky for a woman because of possible complications that risk bodily injury or death.
It is always safer to not be pregnant. This is why the woman should have the last word. SHE IS THE ONLY ONE RISKING HER HEALTH OR LIFE by being pregnant. THE MAN RISKS NOTHING, yet you are bitching about the woman having the final say?
If the MAN was the one risking his life, he'd have the final say.
Pregnant women with WANTED pregnancies are also affected. Obstetricians in Texas have been operating with a near total ban on abortions for months since the Supreme Court didn't overturn their new abortion laws. Texas obstetricians have reported that they are not able to give their patients with WANTED pregnancies the normal standard of care. Pregnant women who develop complications can go from healthy to near-death very quickly and can require a life-saving abortion. Texas doctors are now letting them get to the point that they develop deadly sepsis, before performing a life-saving abortion. They are worried that they will be charged with performing a regular abortion if they make the decision earlier, so it is now far more risky to be pregnant in Texas even if you wanted to.
The irony is that this Texas obstetrician predicted this would happen. Watch this and learn. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHrxSUgLvvA
I don't know why you think it matters that the U.S. currently still has legal abortion for another five minutes. Half the states are set to ban it immediately. Some of them will even ban abortion for women who are pregnant because of rape or incest. 3/4 of women who seek abortions are poor or low income, and these women will struggle to afford to travel to a state that allows abortions.
BTW, it says a lot about your mindset that you think it would be okay with harvesting people organs after death without their consent.
Lastly, a soul would know a termination was in the cards and not even plan to enter that body. They would go to someone else who wants a pregnancy. Steve Jobs could have been born to another set of parents.
"About your mindset that you think it would be okay with harvesting people organs after death without their consent." Untrue. Obviously there would need to be a vote however it clearly would be for the greater good. As I said 100% of dead people do not need their organs and have no desire to keep them from being used to help other people even if when they in the body they said they didn't want their organs used. With higher perspective people's choices change. Are you unable or just unwilling to see that?
"Lastly, a soul would know a termination was in the cards and not even plan to enter that body. They would go to someone else who wants a pregnancy. Steve Jobs could have been born to another set of parents." Absolute made up projection and AssUmption! We have to go on what we can prove.
We can't know that however if you want to take the most commonly accepted spiritual perspective that the soul comes in on the first breath your could guess that. However the rest of spiritual awareness says that the baby has a basic self consciousness inside the body from conception has a high self hanging around which is separate from the soul, and a separate conscious self and everything is time aligned and imprinted on that particular body.
So that Steve Jobs soul would later have a completely different looking and feeling body, a different high self, conscious self and basic self and different time alignment and different life path. The things he created as is would not have occurred as they occurred and therefore would not have existed. That was certainly HIS sense and his testimony.
You are talking about spiritual matters as if you know, but I'm the one assuming?
There is no reason to think that Steve Jobs could not have followed the same life path with different parents. The life path is not only who your parents are. The life path also has to do with personal talents you intend to have, along with certain events.
From the point-of-view of the soul, the guides who help plan your life, and the fact that there is no time, they have infinite ability to plan a life where everything comes together. They would know ahead of time that a particular woman was going to be prone to getting an abortion.
The plan involves the parent's souls too before they are born. If there is a grand plan, they can also make certain that circumstances like economic stability are present to make it easier for the parents to have children.
Your thoughts on the matter seem limited.
Furthermore you are disrespectful to me rather than just making an argument. You need to learn to play the ball NOT the man. Let go of gridiron American style handball where you get to hammer the guy without the ball. Think soccer, where you actually kick the ball and MUST play the ball, not the man or WOWman, or it's a foul!
Please argue the subject matter rather than projecting negativity and assumptions onto my personal self to try and win an argument by smearing.
I have no problem with people disagreeing with me however you better have a good on topic argument with some demonstrable evidence. Thanks.
lol no chance.... you are the one who is demonstrably limited not me. I always do my best to address and consider all viewpoints. Do you? You never address any of my points.
For example you lie and ignore the fundamental problem with your argument that a woman has the right to do what she likes with her body when the body of the child is half of the father and is it's own individual human being. You deny this fact because it's an inconvenient truth.
Further example is as a said a new life with a different physical body, high self, basic self, timeline will NEVER be the same life path. It's just impossible. You make out that the only variable is just different parents. THAT is limited.
No guides plan your life. You plan it and make agreement to your high self and soul then register it with the karmic board.
Inevitably incarnating at a different time you will complete and do different things because so many things are now different, all because a woman decided it was OK and convenient to become The Terminator!!! You could easily bring the child to term and adopt it, but nah, that's too inconvenient for you! Much more convenient just to kill it! Go girl! Brilliant! Women's Rights!
What of the child's rights and the fathers rights? You are actually very disrespectful when you look at things wholistically.
How much research I may or may not have done on "the fetal nervous system" is irrelevant. What is clear is the babies body is a separate creation and separate entity to the mother. The fact that it needs to grow inside the caretaker does NOT give the caretaker the right to kill it. If that was the case then the father would have the right to kill it also yet in law that would be murder and the man would be jailed. The above linked article shows they just don't know enough of what goes on in the consciousness of a developing child. Pain or not it's not a reason to advocate termination. The summary is assumption opinion based on lack of evidence or knowledge. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1440624/
Again, you did not read the whole article and I can tell.
Since ONLY the woman RISKS HER OWN HEALTH to reproduce, she has every right to decline risking her health.
The father NEVER risks his own health to reproduce.
There is no comparison. The woman takes on ALL the physical risk, ALL the physical discomfort, MOST of the care of a new baby, and MOST of the care during childhood and teen years, so it damn well should be HER choice. She's the one with by far the most skin in the game.
You can't tell anything Lorri. You can't even discuss the points in a logical and even minded manner. You are back being a neanderthal attacking the man rather than the subject matter (the ball) with made up projections.
It's an extremely weak argument to make out that it's a matter of health risks. What is the health rick for the child Miss Terminator? 100%. What is the health risk for the mother? Way less than 1%. Only someone with no heart, compassion or humanity would side with the killing a human being to support minimisation of a risk factor that is less than 1% over a risk factor that is 100%. Can you see how stupid that is?
That is bs. Total fabrication.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1440624/
Kevin, Kevin, Kevin, it is clear to me that you did not read the entire thing you linked to. It does not ultimately say what you think it says if you read to the very end.
The conclusion of that supposed study is just an opinion. It is NOT evidence based. They just don't have the evidence of pain. As they say "Without verbal reports and direct access to the mind of a fetus, inferences about what fetuses are able to experience depend on the interpretation of secondary evidence." Later there interpretation is based on lack of awareness of of what goes on inside the child and an assumption that it is not conscious. When you AssUme you make an Ass (out of) U (&) Me.
THE FOLLOWING LIST OF STRUCTURES HAVE TO BE IN PLACE TO FEEL PAIN.
"In the review, the researchers highlighted several key points in fetal development that are REQUIRED in order for a fetus to perceive pain.
ONE is that the receptors in the skin that sense an injury must be developed. Research has shown that this happens between 7.5 and 15 weeks of pregnancy, depending on the location of the receptors on the body, according to the review. For example, receptors in the skin around the mouth develop at around 7.5 weeks, whereas receptors in the skin on the abdomen develop at around 15 weeks, according to the review.
SECOND, the neurons in the spinal cord that transmit that signal up to the brain must be developed. Researchers who looked at fetal tissues reported that this happens at around 19 weeks, the review said.
THIRD, the neurons that extend from the spinal cord into the brain need to reach all the way to the area of the brain where pain is perceived. This does not occur until between 23 and 24 weeks, according to the review.
Moreover, the nerves' existence isn't enough to produce the experience of pain, the authors wrote in their review. Rather, "These anatomical structures must also be functional," the authors wrote. It's not until around 30 weeks that there is evidence of brain activity that suggests the fetus is "awake."
Davis noted that while these time frames aren't exact — some fetuses may develop a little earlier, and some fetuses may develop a little later — "there isn't any science to suggest that those pathways [for pain] are complete around the 20th week" of pregnancy.
"It's a complicated development process, and it goes in stages," Davis said.
According to a statement from ACOG, a fetus's brain and nervous system "do not have the capacity to process, recognize or feel pain during the second trimester."
From: https://www.livescience.com/54774-fetal-pain-anesthesia.html
SEX = CHILDREN. If you can't prevent pregnancy with birth control that's available, you are too irresponsible to be having sex in the first place
Birth control is not 100% effective. Abortion is the backup plan.
I'm sure you must know this.
Having sex is a gamble. When it produces a new life, it's your responsiblity to take care of it, not murder it because you're lazy and can't be inconvenienced. Maybe no sex until you're financially stable enough to raise a child. RESPONSIBiLITY. Imagine that.
So sex, which is part of being human, is only for people with money?
If you use birth control and it fails, your fate is sealed even though there is a safe procedure as a backup?
The word "murder" is a bit much. A fetus in early development can't think a single thought or feel any pain. Most abortions are done before 10 weeks.
The words "lazy" and "inconvenienced" are also not applicable. Pregnancy is physically risky and not being pregnant is always safer. Pregnancy exposes a woman to a long list of possible complications that can result in bodily injury or death. THIS is the reason a woman should have the right to choose.
You can't legally force someone to leave their organs to you after their death, even though it would save your life. A dead person isn't at risk of physical suffering by having their organs removed, but it's illegal unless they have signed a form agreeing to it. A pregnant woman on the other hand takes on multiple physical risks, yet you believe she should have less rights than a corpse.
Sex is a part of procreation. Hundreds of thousands of years of survival and growth, but today's spoiled couples can't be bothered to be responsible. It's much easier doing mental gymnastics to justify murder. Bring up some more fringe situation where it needs to be done. I'm talking about mass genocide of the innocent, not some one-off extreme situations. What are your feelings on the barbaric ritual infant male genital mutilation known as circumcision? Why are ignorant and irresponsible adults allowed to murder and mutilate? "Your fate is sealed" = WOW, loony much? Children are a blessing, not a curse. Don't fuck if you aren't ready to raise a child. Just because sex is shoved down our throats by the mainstream, doesn't mean it's all life is about.
I did not bring up "fringe situations", Szlachta. Why don't you read a book about the possible complications of pregnancy? I can just look at my own family members, and boy do they have stories. My mom nearly died having me. My grandmother sustained damage during her second birth that required surgery to fix. My niece just went through a very risky pregnancy that required constant monitoring. She needed a Caesarean or the doctors said they might have to break her baby's arm and shoulder to get him out. Months later, she had her gall bladder taken out - a not uncommon side effect of the birth.
Pregnancy is inherently more risky than not being pregnant.
Are you aware that pregnant women who actually want to be pregnant are also suffering because of these laws?
Texas enacted an abortion law several months ago. The Texas Tribune reported that a study asked Texas obstetricians to report on how the law has affected their practice. They were referencing women patients with wanted pregnancies.
The obstetricians said they were no longer able to provide the normal standard of care for pregnant women who developed complications. A pregnant woman with complications can deteriorate rapidly. Decisions have to be made very fast.
Texas obstetricians reported that instead of providing a life-saving abortion to patients who were rapidly going downhill, they were sending the women home - until they deteriorated to the point they developed deadly sepsis.
The doctors said they are afraid of being prosecuted if they perform the life-saving abortion too soon. Furthermore, some of the doctors couldn't find nurses and anesthesiologists willing to assist, because they too were worried about being prosecuted.
This Texas obstetrician talked on a YouTube video about what would happen if Roe v. Wade was repealed, and she predicted this would happen.
WATCH: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHrxSUgLvvA
Why can't you understand that I'm talking about abortion of convenience, vs medically required. The troubles you've gone through are most likely due to coming from inferior genetic stock. Without modern medicine, these women might not have survived. Breeding while knowing about your genetic problems is irresponsible. Adoption is a better choice than condemning your own female offspring to potential life-threatening reproductive complications. I tried watching your video, but it starts with distinguising fetus from human, so the rest would be a waste of my time. Low-IQ individuals will jump through all the hoops in the world to ignore the fact that a "clump of cells" is a potential human. Killing it at any stage is still depriving it of a future. Death during pregnancy is a TINY percentage of all births. All you have is extreme fringe cases.
Stop having sex with women if you don’t want children.
Stop having oral sex and anal sex too because your right to privacy from the government is no more.
Stop taking the D....... if you wanna be like that. Don't try and put your choice to murder onto men. Ask the man if he would like to rare the child. Bring it to term and then adopt and/or sign off.
We need more families and children. It sounds like you're having a very boring life.
Sounds like you want women to be broodmares so that the US has a constant domestic supply of infants to turn into wage slaves and cannon fodder.
As for me, I’m a lesbian, happily child free and I intend to stay that way. By any means necessary.
What the fuck does your last paragraph mean? You're lesbian and still facing the possibility of having an abortion?
I feel sorry for you. That's just the kind of cover story a cut-out would dream up.
No, I have a 60 year marriage and with several problems we have adjusted to but my wife is my fucktoy currently. She's crazy, okay. Not a broodmare. I love kids. I wish I had had more of them.
There's a real danger of population collapse in several countries due to low birth rates. Not population explosion. There is no overpopulation. That's a myth.
What right does any man or group of men...or women...have to be placed in a position to ever judge or decide on any aspect of another woman's life? A person's life is surely their responsibility alone except in the case of a crime. How is abortion a crime if it is a decision made by a woman about her own body and her interest or willingness to proceed with an unwanted birth?
I consider it is the greatest injustice in the world today that any person anywhere can determine what happens to a woman's body. Where is the male equivalent I ask? Why hasn't there ever been any legislation preventing men from having any form of relationship with a woman without the risk of serious penalties should the woman fail pregnant. It takes two to tango. Equal responsibility is fair.
Let us see that responsibility shared.
As a crime it would vanish overnight.
And as for giving governments such authority, government's populated by arch conservatives or fanatical religious people, trying to force their outdated thinking on others, nothing could be more outdated than that.
How medieval.
It is an absolute outrage. Always has been in my book.
I really see this an inability to clearly define the difference between self (own body) and not self ( child’s body).
The West is sliding off the edge of the flat earth again.
I’m in the West and I couldn’t care less about it. Nothing one can do. No Wisdom of the West is seen as described by Bertram Russell in his book.
Waking up time is here for the rest of the world. its exciting and full of promise by their actions.
Who would of thought Mexico would lecture the President of America to release Julian Assange and be sensible.
It’s hilarious.
"Bad guys conscript young people and force them to kill and be killed against their will. Nice guys impoverish young people so they have to enlist on their own to get money.'
And rich old white men take away women's rights to abortion to control them and keep them in low paying jobs in order to feed the myriad of unwanted children fathered by sicko rich old white men like Jeffrey Epstein, Bill Clinton, and company. Future wage slaves for those who wished they could have been slave owners.
Moore v. City of East Cleveland says you have a constitutional right to live with your relatives, Thomas wants that gone. Pierce v. Society of Sisters goes back to the 20s says you have a right to raise your own children, Thomas wants that gone. This is an attack on the family. Lawrence v. Texas protects same sex conduct, Thomas has that in his crosshairs. There are a dozen or more cases like that. If it's not enumerated explicitly in the constitution, Thomas et al think it's not constitutional. Let's all go back to the signing of the constitution in 1786, shall we? These are interpretations of the guarantee of "Liberty" in the 14th and 5th Amendments. The Dobbs decision is much larger than you realize, things are going to get much worse. It's a Trojan Horse for the Right that want abortion gone because it signals a siesmic shift in other things they take for granted they don't realize is happening.
then go make laws that support your position. that's how the constitution was written to PREVENT tyranny.
You're right. Congress hasn't done its job. But protecting the rights of minorities is not something Congress does very efficiently. It's up to the Supreme Court to interpret the meaning of words like "Liberty." It has factfinding courts below it that can take evidence and hold trials and create records. Congress doesn't do that quite as well because they weren't set up that way. It took a Civil War to redefine the relationship between the federal government and the states in the context of Civil Rights, which became our civil rights statute 42 USC 1983, which is still being fought over. The Framers deliberately chose ambiguous phrases expecting us to figure out what they meant in our current generation. Now we have a Supreme Court that has a 5 member Catholic majority, and remember what the Vatican has been saying about the eternal damnation of anyone that practices that? Is that a coincidence that the 5 member majority that voted for Dobbs were all Catholic? No non-Catholic voted for it? Is that a problem? And we have a concurring member whose wife has several conflicts of interest and Thomas refuses to recuse himself.
you mistake that the ruling is about abortion at all. that just happens to be the issue where the courts acted in violation to the constitution. i stand with the courts and the reason your "protection of minorities" doesn't work here is because the possibility of the unborn's rights being violated which makes using the 2nd derivative right of privacy completely unbased as even Ginsberg agreed.
This government is corrupt and illegitimate since 2000 bush v gore.
Electoralism doesn’t work. Violent revolution does.
So, you're from the FBI, right? Violence onibegets more violence. Violent revolution only brings violent parties to power. Look what the US did to Ukraine and now they have a Nazi government attacking its own people. You're an idiot.
The FBI is on the side of the oligarchs and the anti-abortionists. Law enforcement always sides with the fascists.
You don't even know who your enemy is! How you gonna fight with violence if you don't even know who you're fighting? Believe me you don't.
So the other dimension of this that I haven't brought up is the influence of the Vatican on world affairs through their use of Concordats. If you want to see the ultimate authoritarian state of the kind Caitlin is talking about look no further. For the Vatican and especially the Jesuits the 500 year old counter-reformation has never gone away and they are still fighting it in this modern era. https://youtu.be/gM0PGDGcr0U
I’m not from the FBI (lol that’s what an FBI agent would say!) nor do I currently own guns. I inherited guns from my father when he passed away, and those guns are currently being held by family friends many states away. But they are mine if I ever want them back, and up until recently I had no interest. I have mental health issues and have had suicidal ideation in the past and that has been what has holding me back from exercising my second amendment rights - I’m more likely to die at my own hand than use my gun for defense or offense.
I am a queer person living in a rural but liberal state. All of this groomer talk is making me nervous. These religious nut jobs running the country are making me nervous. I’m also a non practicing Jew, who spent my entire youth learning in depth about fascism and the holocaust. My father warned me that this could happen, and the warning is coming to fruition in real time.
I’ve voted in every election from president to fucking dog catcher since I was 18. IT DOESNT MATTER. The entire system is corrupt and has been since before I was born. The only way to protect my and other marginalized people’s rights is through the barrel of a gun. Fascists only understand violence and it’s time that we speak to them in the only language they understand.
FREEDOM IS NOT FREE.
I am far left. “Under no pretext...”
yes the system is corrupt. but in absence of it do we have a power vacuum which is far far worse. your blaming the religious is misguided. it is moderates who are offended by the rug pull of our shared heritage. the compulsory language around gender identity. the being forced to accept a disorder as natural. the sexualizing of children.
what you fail to see is that this is an arm of corruption. it took an authentic movement for equality which does not infringe on the rights of others and turned it into a radicalized agenda being pushed onto children who are not developmentally prepared to handle the topic. this is literally grooming a generation to an ideology not based in our historical shared social values, but rather driven by globalists seeking to create discord and chaos. we want you to live your life as you see fit for yourself, we just don't want you forcing us to accept a new reality that is unstable for our existing reality that served humanity for tens or hundreds of thousands of years.
Sexualizing children? For fucks sake get a fucking grip. Plenty of pedos in religious institutions preaching “family values” while raping boys and girls.
Get the fuck out of here with your homophobic fascist bullshit.
You could be trying to entrap me but I don't fall for crazy shit.
Electoralism..you mean democracy? Yeah that would be a great idea. Why don't we try that. Start by enforcing the anti trust laws and voting fraud laws.
I’m all for those reforms but it’s too fucking late.
That’s liberal brain rot in action, thinking you can dismantle the masters house with his own tools. Not going to happen and every year it becomes clearer and clearer that the only proper response to violence from the state is violence on behalf of the people against the corrupt and illegitimate state.
You sound exactly like Malcolm X.
They would like nothing better than for you to go violent, that way they can completely cancel and discredit you. The US has been overthrowing democratically elected governments and installing puppets all around the world for a century that way. The first WTC bombing in 1983 was assisted by an FBI agent who helped construct the bomb on behalf of the pasty. It is now well known that FBI agents instigated the invasion of Congress on 1/6. We have one main problem that we are being manipulated by the Brits into doing their bidding. We need to kick these assholes out of our deep state and send a few war criminals to the gallows. Give 'em a fair trial and hang 'em.
"Easy access to safe abortions makes women much more free from male domination. It just does. And that's exactly why it is opposed." No, that's not why abortion is opposed. In fact, many women support the decision. I'm not saying I support it; that's just the way it is, and progress will not be made by setting female against male. The issue festered so long because, "As long as the powerful can make the public fight over issues which don't inconvenience power, public attention can be kept away from issues which do inconvenience power."
I agree with most of the rest of your analysis.
The overturning of Roe v Wade was not really about abortion, but rather about the court violating the constitution and removing the people's ability to self govern.
Please clarify. Are you saying the court violated the Constitution in the Roe decision itself, or in the new decision overturning it?
The new majority opinion holds that the Constitution does not give the court the power to affirm a "right to privacy" or to apply that right to pregnancy and abortion, and that the court therefor overstepped its authority in restricting the ability of states to legislate the matter.
Yes. Even Ginsberg, a staunch women's rights supporter, said the grounds for protecting women through RvW were faulty. The SCs purview is to determine the constitutionality of laws, precedential or legislative. It did not do this in RvW. It created a "right to privacy" through it's own rulings and even that was a second derivative of the 14th amendment's right to civil liberties.
Furthermore, in ruling for RvW it actually created a legislative framework for how abortion would be handled via the trimesters. This was also an overstep of their authority as it is the authority of legislatures to make such laws, not to mention put itself at odds with current medical knowledge.
This is a sad day for many women, but a good day for going back to proper balance of powers. I am hopeful that this will lead to overturning Citizens United which cited RvW's dubious use of the 14th amendment to bestow rights of natural citizens on to corporations.
I wasn't previously aware of a possible connection between Roe and Citizens United. I'm doubtful SCOTUS will be consistent though.
Yes, that's exactly why it is opposed. And why it was put in the rules of religions thousands of years ago
I guess we should allow fratricide because Cain and Abel lived so long ago and the rule against it is so archaic. I'm not saying I want to ban abortion; I'm just pointing out how ridiculous and irrelevant your statement it. Do you disagree that the debate has been useful in the elite agenda to divide and rule by distracting us plebes from issues we can agree on, like murder from 20,000 feet?
I guess you should brush up on your comprehension of English. I did not say rules have an expiration date, I say the arguments upon which they are based were set in history. In this case, it was in a time when patriarchy was setting in.
And saying a debate is useful in distracting us doesn't mean it's unimportant when your rights are concerned
Comprehension includes an awareness of what was NOT said. I said nothing about an "expiration date," nor did I claim you said anything about such.
You clearly prioritize your own personal "right" to a medical procedure above the rights of people in other countries to live in peace. So be it.
I see you don't care about making sense. But just for the entertainment, what does “the rights of people in other countries to live in peace” have to do with with anything I said?
Clearly nothing, which shows you have no empathy for other human beings and are a total narcissist. The only rights that count are your own (in some cases imagined) rights.
Brothers are living breathing people who aren’t inside a uterus belonging to someone else.
We don’t need religion to tell us not kill other living breathing humans.
But since you want to go to the Old Testament let’s talk about how Judaism is supportive of abortion and it’s even mentioned in the Old Testament.
Religious freedom for me but not for thee! - cuckservative fascist trash
I'm not the one who brought religion into the discussion, and I wasn't countering you, so mind your own business - cuckglobalist defender of war.
Last I checked this was a public forum so go fuck yourself.
I’m anti war, anti fascist, and anarchist. Fuck fascist trash. Hope you get raped and need an abortion JK it’s obvious you’re an entitled male who will never have to do anything but be a two pump chump and run.
You're the one who started with "cuck" this and that and other name calling.
In judaism abortion is specifically allowed and even encouraged to protect the health of the mother.
this doesn't even address my point. why do you go on?
Remember how MOVE got their entire neighborhood in Philly firebombed from the air by the FBI? Remember how the FBI massacred Bobby Seale in Chicago to stop the Black Panthers Movement? Man, where you been? It's like trying to kill an elephant with a pea shooter. Only the pen is mightier than the sword, if it's used right. But I agree our options have severely narrowed and nothing will work anymore.
Those who live by the sword die by the sword. Violence is not the answer. Yes, take the high road. War is evil and civil war the most evil.
To elaborate it is all about vibration. Each person spreads positive or negative vibes all day long. Each one of us is contributing to light or darkness every moment.
The FBI is right here in this comments section.
Why, because people like myself are stating the obvious that the only option we have left is violence?
It’s self defense at this point. Fuck around and find out.
because when you use violence, you create justification for greater violence by a far stronger adversary. also, when you use the techniques of tyrants, you become the very tyrant you overthrew. you really need to game theory out your positions.
Whenever you have a military overthrow of a government, anywhere, it's the military that inevitably forms the new government and usually they pick someone with the same authoritarian military mindset to become a tyrant. These military juntas last for decades, as an example, Chile 9/11/73. The CIA knows well how to do this. Not a good direction to go.
I agree 100% Kanefire, very well explained. Our American Revolution was an historic anomaly in that the winners did not seize tyrannical control but voluntarily formed a representative republic, and George Washington refused an offer to become king, preferring the presidency instead. It may have had to do with the seventy years of war that preceded the Revolution and the way they all suffered at the hands of the British in the French-Indian Wars, with their terrible atrocities and wanted no part of that. And they had to appease the various states into joining. It's not likely to happen again and we shouldn't take it for granted. It's like throwing everything up for grabs.
sounds just like something I'd say. Washington gets a lot of slack for being a slaver from the youth who don't grasp the intellectual dishonesty of judging the social norms of previous generations by current values, but he was a force to be reckoned with. Richest man in America, funded the revolutionary army, led that army to victory against the preeminent military of the time, was asked to be king, but preferred a republic through an enlightened document (the constitution is biomimetic of human design, ill write about soon). He also warned us that political parties would destroy the nation. Wish we could have him back today.
What you’re saying is “anti fascists are the real fascists!”
Fuck off liberal. Keep taking the “high road” and just protest with your little pussy hat harder and vote harder and keep voting so fucking hard.
Grow the fuck up. Freedom isn’t free.
go start your war bro... just don't expect anyone to follow your deranged ass.
I think you're an ignorant paid agitator. Count me out.
I wish I was fucking paid for this. Who’s the agitator, me or our government?
They deserve to be fucking drawn and quartered.
I have no doubts. Good reason not to get carried away with emotion. We're no terrorists.
Sadly the propaganda works a treat. My wife is Jewish and she believes that Putin is the devil and that the whole situation is his fault. She would not watch or listen to for instance Prof. Mersheimers talk about the prelude to the war in Ukraine nor would she read about the lies that were spread from the Ukrainian side about the supposed atrocities committed by Russian soldiers that were complete imaginations.
People need to understand that the public is being manipulated for at least the last 100 years. But most have no clue and will not take a second to think about it.
If one were to decide a position on one's ethnicity or religion, a Jewish person should oppose the Ukrainian government and the influence of Neo Nazis there. After all, it was Ukraine which completely cooperated with the German Fascist occupiers, gathered all the Jewish people and put them in concentration camps and killed 30,000 Jews in three days. This is part and parcel of the WWII substantiated history. This is not an opinion.
Putin is an evil piece of shit like all imperial rulers.
Based on what?
You know NOTHING.
Civil Liberty: Other people’s bodies are nobody’s business but their own.
On the other hand, the ancient “privileges” of chattel law, adored by the bureaucratic church (and inverted by so many faithless) represent a, if not the, most remarkable (and unconstitutional) conflation of church and state. ~C.G.
And your position on tyrannical "vaccine" mandates was the same?
you care if your neighbor gets murdered right? that's somebody else's body, why do you care?
There is a big difference between a fetus in the early stages without the ability to think or feel pain . . . and a full term baby who can do both.
The neighbor can't be compared with a fetus in the early stages.
If you make a point using extremes, so will I. The US has long followed English Common Law which bestows rights on the unborn at the quickening, or when the unborn is first detected moving which is about halfway through the pregnancy.
Guess who else is Catholic? Biden. Pelosi. Gates, Fauci, a short list of Jesuits, too.
I forgot to mention Pope Francis, the first Jesuit pope in the entire history of the Catholic Church, funny isn't it?