Roe V Wade Decision

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: face23785

I have it on good authority that men can get pregnant too, so men can have an opinion on this now.

Not without a fully functional uterus, they cant.

Opinion yes, a decision, well that's up to the pregnant individual.

Adding the trans aspect simply muddies the water face23785.

If a woman chooses not to have a child, especially where reasons such as incest and rape are concerned, forcing her to do so, or criminalizing a decision to terminate, can only be counterproductive to the situation.

Biology muddied those waters long before Face did.

a reply to: andy06shake

Doesn't really matter what your intention was, this is the world we've been given. Men can have babies. Saying otherwise is transphobic. Since men can have babies, men can have opinions on abortion.

Again, if you don't like that, take it up with the Democrats who gave us this clown world.

Don't be a transphobic bigot. And don't blame me. I didn't make the rules.

My initial post in this thread still stands as well. The vast majority of people arguing against this decision haven't read the decision and therefore their arguments are not based in logic or reason.

You're arguing why abortion should be legal, not why Roe v Wade shouldn't be overturned. If the decision becomes final, you'll have to take your arguments to your state legislature, as it should be. And you should want it that way. It's easier to influence your state reps than it is your congressional reps.

a reply to: face23785

An opinion is one thing face23785.

The decision is a whole nother matter and down to the individual.

As to your transphobic bigot nonsense and claims of such.

I can only put that down to you projecting.

I'm not arguing anything.

I'm telling you straight its the woman's decision period laws or no laws.

And they will choose to do as they please one way or the other.

Ether by legal rescore or other means which makes it dangerous.

Simple as that really.

a reply to: face23785

No, the laws are mutable. They change them whenever they need to. It doesn't matter how they wrote it, i.e their reasoning. What matters is why its being changed, because that includes the greater context.
Whatever their reasoning is, the law is being changed to fit the agenda.
The openly stated agenda is transhumanism and the great reset. The impact for society is how the law change serves that agenda, so, why its changing is more important than whatever excuse or babbel they put on paper.

a reply to: andy06shake

I agree, women will choose. Even now, women will go through risks if they can't afford an abortion. The clothes hanger phenomenon is evidence for that.

originally posted by: andy06shake
As to your transphobic bigot nonsense and claims of such.

I can only put that down to you projecting.

You're mistaken. I am not a Democrat. I did not make your comments transphobic. Democrats did. Don't blame me for anti-science Democrat insanity, thanks.

I'm telling you straight its the woman's decision period laws or no laws.

And they will choose to do as they please one way or the other.

It is of course anyone's decision whether they want to follow the law or not. It's not like there is some law of physics stopping people from doing things that are illegal. Again, I'm not a Democrat. I don't think a "no shootings" or "no abortions" law will magically stop people from being able to do those things.

The consequences of ignoring the law are of course on the person who decides to ignore it.

Just as the consequences of getting pregnant are on the people who decided to have sex, unless it was rape obviously.

a reply to: Wisenox

Laws can be changed.

Gee, what a revelation you've had there.

Please, spread your unique insights far and wide. People need to be informed that once a law is passed (or in this case, a court makes a decision) it will not necessarily endure for eternity.

a reply to: Wisenox

Supply and demand 101

Better a trained medical professional carry out such a medical procedure as opposed to joe blogs in the back of some shack with a rusty coat hanger.

a reply to: face23785

Well your mistaken if you think im a Democrat, so there is that.

As to consequences, well those are indeed apt to happen.

A woman's body is still her own concern all the same as most of them will plainly tell you.

Glad you're clear on the rape/incest aspect all the same.

As to ignoring the law, people choose to do so all the time, woman are no different than men on that score.

Good luck warehousing all these alleged ""abortion murderers"" and whatnot, somehow i imagine some new private prisons may be in order there.

originally posted by: Wisenox
a reply to: andy06shake

I agree, women will choose. Even now, women will go through risks if they can't afford an abortion. The clothes hanger phenomenon is evidence for that.

You might want to give this a read.

Before abortion was legal, the overwhelming majority of illegal abortions were done by qualified medical professionals in a safe settings.

If anything, the percentages would be even higher today.

You can learn about other myths propagated by the Big Abortion industry here. I doubt you'll read it, but I post it anyway because there may be open-minded people here who will be curious.

a reply to: andy06shake

I made no comments at all about your political affiliation. For someone who's not a Democrat, you sure do parrot their talking points a lot.

I was just letting you know who to blame for the fact that the "men can't have opinions on abortion" angle is now obsolete. That would be the fault of Democrats.

Also, it's worth noting that Roe v Wade was decided by a bunch of men, so if you were logically consistent, you should agree the decision should be nullified.

I realize logic has no place in this discussion though.

a reply to: face23785

I made no comments at all about your political affiliation.

And i did not make any comments regarding your political affiliations nether.

For someone who's not a Democrat, you sure do parrot their talking points a lot.

I dont know about the sure part but you are entitled to your opinions, the problem being the world is somewhat more complex an affair than that simplistic democrat vs republican ideology you seem so fascinated with.

I was just letting you know who to blame for the fact that the "men can't have opinions on abortion" angle is now obsolete. That would be the fault of Democrats.

Smashing.

Also, it's worth noting that Roe v Wade was decided by a bunch of men, so if you were logically consistent, you should agree the decision should be nullified.

Thanks for telling me what i should agree with. LOL

I realize logic has no place in this discussion though.

Or a woman's choice to make her own decisions for that matter.

How very logical.

originally posted by: andy06shake
I dont know about the sure part but you are entitled to your opinions, the problem being the world is somewhat more complex an affair than that simplistic democrat vs republican ideology you seem so fascinated with.

Now that's some projection. My only mention of Democrats was on a very specific issue, their anti-science view that men can get pregnant. You brought other Democrat talking points into the discussion, like putting children in for-profit prisons, which is a common Democrat dig at Republicans.

I made no mention of Republicans at all. So who really sees that as the only other viewpoint if that's the extrapolation your brain made?

Anyway, this is going nowhere. As I noted, you're not even interested in a logical discussion on the issue. Keep fighting to protect that decision a bunch of men made about women's bodies, Roe v. Wade.

a reply to: face23785

No thats a fact mate no projection, the world is indeed somewhat more complex an affair than that simplistic democrat vs republican right vs left ideology.

If you could simply point me to where i bring up democrats, republicans, or politics for that matter, or even mention their name before yourself in this thread that might be nice?

Its going nowhere because you seem unwilling to accept the fact that law or not a woman's body is her own concern and seem more interested in "a bunch of men".

Whatever floats your boat really.

Have a nice day.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: filthyphilanthropist

What about incest or rape?

Would those kind of horrendous scenarios be exceptions or grounds for abortion?

Like i said a woman's body is her own concern.

If you wish to criminalize their free choice to make decisions as to what grows or does not grow in their own body, good luck with that.

You may as well try and criminalize the likes of homosexuality again. LoL

I don't care what a woman does with her body. I care what she does with another person's body. Unborn babies are the most vulnerable people in our society, and they need advocates. Even in cases of rape and incest, those babies don't pose any threat and they didn't do anything wrong.

ATS's own Carewemust is a product of rape.

ATS carewemust

As far as incest babies it is indeed a travesty, but why condemn the baby? It might be a rough life. It's a rough life for everyone. They may become very successful and esteemed like Harvard graduate, Mahidol Adulyadej, or former Pope Gregory the Great.

And that comment on homosexuality is a non sequitur. You may as well legalize pedophilia and incest. See? It's irrelevant and isn't becoming of the conversation is it?

A woman's body - a woman's right. Its a woman's body, its her choice. Its all about republicans taking choices away from women.

Have you all forgotten that, thanks to our newest SCOTUS member, we don't know what a woman even is? How can you take away rights and choices from a being you cant even define?

Seems to me all dems want to do is bitch about something, anything. If there is no reason to bitch, make one up and bitch about that. Its a tried and true dem policy. If you are angry - you must be right. NOT.

a reply to: filthyphilanthropist

So you are up for forcing a woman to go through pregnancy even if the baby is a product of incest or rape?

Yes or no answer please?

And if she aborts the fetus you wish her to be charged with murder?

Again a yes or no answer will sufice.

Homosexuality is not in anyway synonymous with pedophilia or incest, but pregnancy sure as hell is.

And it was also once upon a time illegal in your nation just like my own if memory serves.

So the comparison is indeed relevant to the argument where the legality of abortion is concerned.

That jinn doesn't go back into society's bottle no matter how hard one might wish to push.

originally posted by: Wisenox

Do Not be Fooled With Roe V Wade on bitchute presents the opinion that the decision is all about removing the my body my choice freedom that currently exists. 

The left have already done that with the vaccine mandates, so what are you talking about with the right who are the one's pushing back on those mandates, not the left. You can't force me to get a vaccine then say My body, My choice. Also, removing Roe vs Wade will not reduce the number of abortions. It will be more like you may or may not be able to get them down the street at your local planned parenthood and they may or may not be free. 13 state looks like they will ban, 13 will have limitations, so 24 will be all open 24/7 at your leisure up to 10 seconds before birth, so are we just complaining about inconvenience for some?

My personal opinion of SCOTUS as anti-people leads me towards the first reason, my body my choice.  I believe there is a higher possibility that they are laying the infrastructure for giving the government the legal authority to decide medical procedures for people.

Can you comprehend the point that Roe vs Wade was out of the scope of what the SC is allowed to do? If you want it federal then have Congress make it so, otherwise it is the right of each state to decide. It is strange that Obama with a super majority would not make it federal, why? Maybe the left needs this dead horse to kick every election cycle. If Congress makes it federally legal then it is a done argument, end of story... This is not a SC matter.

a reply to: filthyphilanthropist

ATS's own Carewemust is a product of rape.

This is a person who is admittedly proud that his biological grandparents saw fit to force their 12 year old daughter to give birth to her rapist's offspring. This is a person seeking to normalize forcing every pregnant 12 year old rape victim, et al, to give birth to their rapists' offspring to justify their own existence.

originally posted by: Wisenox
a reply to: BelleEpoque

I have this horrible feeling it is about taking the right of a women's body away from her.

I agree with that.
The elites have commented before that women will "exercise their right to have a baby" in the future. Makes me think that women will have to seek medical assistance to have a child, and that medical assistance will be a "right". They won't be able to choose for themselves.

I see a convenient stepping stone, that a women needs a doctor's approval which could be predetermined by a list written by "those that gave us and mandated the jab" or just the "professional" judgement of doctors and nurses that went along with it. Easy and logical thing to do but the result takes control from her & family and giving it to "those that gave us and mandated the jab."