The bus to the Women's March

originally posted by: angeldoll
a reply to: UKTruth

I usually do. (Obey the laws) I just don't want a bunch of busy-bodies trying to determine what's best for me.

It's not what is best for you that is the debate.

So. For everybody who disapproved of the Women's March in Washington, this song is for you. Bite me. And I mean that in the most passive aggressive pleasant way possible. This vid is so old, but still gets me in a good mood. Watch it.

a reply to: UKTruth

it is far more pertinent than what is best for you! who can best decide what is best for the pregnant women, or the unborn baby for that matter. you?? the old wisemen writing the laws? ancient manuscripts from a far distant age?
or the women, her doctor, her husband???

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: MotherMayEye

No side going to get their most extreme way on this issue although I see plenty of room for compromise in the reasonable points you made.

There's is no need for, or room for compromise. Roe V Wade isn't broken, regardless of your "heart beat" philosophy, and there's no need to "fix" it.

Good luck with that position.

BTW, I have said I was solidly pro-choice multiple times in this thread.

a reply to: angeldoll

The night before the election, Libertarians were polling at 4.7% nationwide. Kentucky was going solidly Trump anyway, so I cast a vote for the Libertarians hoping they would reach that critical 5%. Both of the two contender third parties — Green Party & Libertarians — are pro-choice. It would be great if women could find the courage to vote for a third party. Two out of three parties that are pro-choice would really be an accomplishment.

Inviting the voices of all women into the cause of 'women' would also go a long way. It’s tough to talk about this issue without things becoming heated, but the courage to do so will go a long way.

Regardless of how anyone feels about the issue, there has to be compromise or else one side is going to lose it all.

Sucks…but it doesn’t suck. Better to be truly united than divided and half the country miserable.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: angeldoll
a reply to: UKTruth

I usually do. (Obey the laws) I just don't want a bunch of busy-bodies trying to determine what's best for me.

It's not what is best for you that is the debate.

This is where you need to read your own signature. In this case you are making things much more simple than they are.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Voting third party in this election wasn't a good option for me.

originally posted by: angeldoll
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Voting third party in this election didn't work for me.

I understand that not everyone was in a state that was solidly polling in one camp.


ETA: All it takes is 5% though.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: MotherMayEye

No side going to get their most extreme way on this issue although I see plenty of room for compromise in the reasonable points you made.

There's is no need for, or room for compromise. Roe V Wade isn't broken, regardless of your "heart beat" philosophy, and there's no need to "fix" it.

Some disagree. Including the majority party in your govt.
Actually, according to the latest data, the majority of women disagree with abortions beyond 12 weeks.

Disagreeing doesn't change the fact that Roe V Wade is a constitutionally applied standard, protecting the privacy and autonomy for all US citizens, that has nothing to do with personal values or religious beliefs. Not liking Roe V Wade doesn't change the US Constitution.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: angeldoll
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Voting third party in this election didn't work for me.

I understand that not everyone was in a state that was solidly polling in one camp.


ETA: All it takes is 5% though.

That's not what I meant. I didn't care for Johnson or Green. I voted for Clinton because I wanted to.

originally posted by: windword

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: MotherMayEye

No side going to get their most extreme way on this issue although I see plenty of room for compromise in the reasonable points you made.

There's is no need for, or room for compromise. Roe V Wade isn't broken, regardless of your "heart beat" philosophy, and there's no need to "fix" it.

Some disagree. Including the majority party in your govt.
Actually, according to the latest data, the majority of women disagree with abortions beyond 12 weeks.

Disagreeing doesn't change the fact that Roe V Wade is a constitutionally applied standard, protecting the privacy and autonomy for all US citizens, that has nothing to do with personal values or religious beliefs. Not liking Roe V Wade doesn't change the US Constitution.

Where was the Women's March when Congress failed to do their job and vote on Obama's SCOTUS nominee and where were they when Obama did not force a vote?

I know why Republicans wanted to refuse to vote. And the only reason I can think that Obama did not force a vote was because he wanted to hold the women's vote hostage in this election.

Now look at where we are.

Democratic-loyalist women better wise up, stop pretending to be feminists, and be tough enough on themselves to be real feminists.

a reply to: angeldoll

Oh. Well, you didn't choose the lesser of three evils then.

originally posted by: windword

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: MotherMayEye

No side going to get their most extreme way on this issue although I see plenty of room for compromise in the reasonable points you made.

There's is no need for, or room for compromise. Roe V Wade isn't broken, regardless of your "heart beat" philosophy, and there's no need to "fix" it.

Some disagree. Including the majority party in your govt.
Actually, according to the latest data, the majority of women disagree with abortions beyond 12 weeks.

Disagreeing doesn't change the fact that Roe V Wade is a constitutionally applied standard, protecting the privacy and autonomy for all US citizens, that has nothing to do with personal values or religious beliefs. Not liking Roe V Wade doesn't change the US Constitution.

You said there was 'no need to fix it'
Like I said, the majority seem to disagree, including the majority party in govt.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Where was the Women's March when Congress failed to do their job and vote on Obama's SCOTUS nominee and where were they when Obama did not force a vote?

What? You want to blame pro-choice women for Congress' refusal to consider Obama's SCOTUS nominee?

I know why Republicans wanted to refuse to vote. And the only reason I can think that Obama did not force a vote was because he wanted to hold the women's vote hostage in this election.

I don't think Obama could have forced a vote. But, what does that have to do with Roe V Wade? It's going to take a constitutional amendment to overturn Roe V Wade.

a reply to: UKTruth

Okay Mister Smarty Pants, "fix it" how?

Tell me how that could happen?

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: angeldoll

Oh. Well, you didn't choose the lesser of three evils then.

What? I protest!

Seriously, I don't think either Johnson or Green are evil. I didn't think they were competent enough to run the government. Not that it helped.

originally posted by: windword
But, what does that have to do with Roe V Wade? It's going to take a constitutional amendment to overturn Roe V Wade.

Yes.

And why are you fretting Roe v Wade? You were the one who brought it up.

originally posted by: angeldoll

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: angeldoll

Oh. Well, you didn't choose the lesser of three evils then.

What? I protest!

Seriously, I don't think either Johnson or Green are evil. I didn't think they were competent enough to run the government. Not that it helped.

Well, it's apparent that neither were ever going to win.

The goal is just 5% of the vote so that we have a third party with equal ballot access and public funding. The goal is to tear down the divide.

Two out of three parties that are pro-choice is far better than one out of two.

originally posted by: Byrd

originally posted by: Teikiatsu
You mean a sexually active woman would be so irresponsible to just assume that the contraception is working at 100% and never check? Not experiencing a period after 5 weeks isn't enough of a hint?

(sigh)

I don't want to be unkind and go into a whole "I don't think you know much about women's physiology" but there are a number of reasons why even women on the pill might not get their periods after 4 weeks or (and many of us can raise our hands for this one) get irregular periods/spotting/blood during the time when it's not supposed to happen. And yes, it's even possible to be pregnant and have spotting or what looks like a period during the early phase.

Doctor visits to confirm pregnancy are not cheap - unless you are able to go to Planned Parenthood which is becoming less possible.

However, the best solution is for the man to step up and be proactive in preventing pregnancy. Condoms have the highest rate of prevention without the weird hormonal side effects of the pill.

(sigh)

Best solution is for neither person to have sex unless they are ready to raise a kid. Abstinence has the highest rate of prevention, and as a bonus also prevents the spread of STD's.

(sigh)

The events you describe are infrequent at best.

(sigh)

One more for emphasis.

(sigh)

a reply to: MotherMayEye

I brought it up because of the "Heart Beat" , and argument and your support of it. You said that "no (extreme) side" was going to get what they want. I think the most extreme Prochoice "side" is reflected in Roe V Wade, the ultimate law of the land in regards to when a woman and her doctor's rights are greater than the state's interest in the contents of uterus, until a fetus reaches viability. The state's right supersede the woman's right's to protect the potential life of the unborn child.

Since the US Constitution specifically names "persons born" as those covered by Constitutional rights, I think that's a HUGE compromise, allowing the state to regulate a woman's uterus., and I'm happy to support that compromise.