The Roe V Wade Protests are Coming

a reply to: TheRedneck

No, I don't think so. As I see it, reversing Roe kicks the issue back to the States. The problem I see with the Leftist authoritarians is that they feel utterly compelled to impose their standards and beliefs down everyone else's throats.

They are, however, constantly thwarted by the Reublic form of government set up by the Constitution. I have read numerous Leftist complaints about this form of government. They speak of the need for a new Constitution.

I have to believe that at some point, the Californian Leftists are going to realize the have no need for Texas, or Oklahoma from an economic standpoint and that these flyover states are just a needless impediment to their goals. They have nothing in common with fly over country, and could, in fact make themselves wealthier by dissolving the Union and then charging hefty tariffs on Chinese goods passing through Californian ports on their way to fly over country.

The same applies to the East Coast states.

The problem with the States deciding is the Equal Protection clause. In which the citizens of a State are entitled to the privileges and immunities of the citizens of the several States.

This is very important because once citizenship protections are given to the unborn in 26 states, they are eligible to all unborn in every state.

Yet full faith and credit doesn’t grant reciprocity for a CCW in all 50 states. Maybe that will be reviewed as well?

a reply to: Boadicea

You guys keep saying it's a male/female thing. You are saying the men are the ones against abortion. I happen to be a woman faced with that very decision as a teenager. I was against it then, and I'm still against it. I fully agree with the men in this thread. Am I a traitor to our sex? They are laying out good well reasoned statements and even quoting the law regarding trying to influence judicial decisions and actions. You just whined like a child and said they were using "kneejerk trash talk" when you just did the same.

a reply to: Ellie Sagan

I happen to be a woman faced with that very decision as a teenager. I was against it then, and I'm still against it.

Do you think that all women should be able to make their own decisions, like you were able to, or do agree that there should be laws that would require women to live with your choice for them?

a reply to: Sookiechacha

I admit there are gray areas, but I don't think a legal choice should be murdering an unborn person for the simple reason that one wants to. My choice would be for a woman to be selfless enough to carry the baby at least, and then let it be adopted. I think it should go without saying, but I will say it for clarity, I think they should have the choice IF the mother's life is without a doubt at risk.
My friend got pregnant as a teen also. She chose to abort. I went with her for support. I didn't judge her then, I don't judge her now, and we are still friends. The point is, she could have carried it. She said I was horrible for wanting to have my baby adopted out, as I couldn't be sure it would go to a good home. I eventually decided to keep the baby, but I never could understand why she thought killing it was less horrible than giving it a chance at life.

originally posted by: Ellie Sagan
a reply to: Boadicea

You guys keep saying it's a male/female thing.

I am not "you guys." I never said any such thing. If I wanted to say it, then I would have said it. The most I could say in that regard is that men cannot get pregnant and that's just biological fact.

You are saying the men are the ones against abortion.

Please don't make crap up. I have never quantified or qualified abortion opinions by sex. I have never said that only men are against abortion. I have never said that all men are against abortion.

I happen to be a woman faced with that very decision as a teenager. I was against it then, and I'm still against it. I fully agree with the men in this thread.

Okay. BFD. I have my own experiences. I was damn near killed by an ectopic pregnancy that ruptured the Fallopian tube, because the arrogant doctor refused to take my completely textbook symptoms seriously. I was then told that I could never have children. When I got pregnant, I was offered an abortion, which I declined, preferring to let nature take its course. I was told that I would have complications -- life-threatening complications -- but I still continued with the pregnancy. Does that make me some kind of hero? Nope. One hell of a badass! But not a hero. And it still doesn't matter. It only matters in the big picture of where and how to draw legal and medical lines. Personal experience is only relevant to the extent that no one woman is the only woman subject to those experiences, and it's the conditions that need to be considered. Abortion rights cannot be determined by the experiences or druthers of any one person -- male or female.

Am I a traitor to our sex?

What a ridiculous question. A better question might be "Are you a "pick me" that betrays and sabotages and backstabs other women for the positive (cough! cough!) attention and approval of men?" An even better question is, "Are you putting women in dangerous situations based on your own experience and personal druthers?" You can judge that for yourself. I am not your conscience.

They are laying out good well reasoned statements and even quoting the law regarding trying to influence judicial decisions and actions.

In your opinion.

You just whined like a child and said they were using "kneejerk trash talk" when you just did the same.

Awwww.... boo freaking hoo.

a reply to: Ellie Sagan

I think they should have the choice IF the mother's life is without a doubt at risk.

Every pregnancy -- without a doubt -- is a risk to the mother's life, throughout the pregnancy, up to and including labor and delivery, and beyond. Each and every pregnancy. Too often, by the time the threat is known (and/or recognized and acknowledged by healthcare providers), it is too late. This is exacerbated and compounded by medical malpractice by healthcare providers.

As a society, we have long established a person's absolute inalienable right to protect and defend their own lives from threats. Pregnancy is not an exception. Women are not public property. Women are not private property. Women are not second class citizens with different "rights" than men.

What we can, should and must do is balance the conflict of rights between mother and unborn child. This necessarily requires restrictions on abortions, particularly in terms of timing, and appropriate remedies. For example, as I and others have previously suggested, this could include abortions up until a pre-determined point in the pregnancy, and induced labor beyond that point.

I'm happy to hear other practical and relevant suggestions. But those seem to be in short supply...

a reply to: Boadicea

When I said “you guys,” I meant that you completely agreed with the poster who said it. So yeah, you essentially said it, too. Also, you brought up the misogynist tag when someone used the word “hysterical.” That's pretty much a male/female thing. Furthermore, I didn't even know you were females until you two made it clear that it was an issue. Perhaps I presumed that you thought it was men who were the abortion opponents due to you making gender an issue worthy to be mentioned here. My bad.

As far as my personal experience, no, I do not think I'm a hero. Just giving a little background, as you see fit to do also about your own life. I'm sorry you had to go through the pain and suffering with the ectopic pregnancy. I'm glad to hear you decided to let the next pregnancy take it's course. I too was faced with needing a surgery on a condition that could get worse, that wasn't discovered until I was pregnant, that could have killed the baby (the surgery that is). I decided to wait until after I had him. I don't see that as me being a hero, or “badass,” as you call yourself. I just knew that he deserved a chance at life. I didn't see mine as more important than his.

I'm very insulted that you think that a woman would say she has a certain opinion simply to get the attention and approval of men. Am I just a stupid, shallow woman who can't possible agree with what men say on a topic? I guess I shouldn't be insulted by what a stranger says on the internet, but, it seems you have a real negative view of women who don't share all your opinions. I could be wrong, but that's how your statements come off.

Oh, and the childish retort at the end of your post doesn't make it easy to take you seriously.

a reply to: Boadicea

I agree that every pregnancy has risks. If it's so risky though, it would seem that people would put more thought into having sex. The fact remains, in my opinion, the vast majority of people who have elective abortions, simply do not need to do so.
I do agree that this issue remains a complicated one. For the record, I used to be completely against it, until I read more about it and decided that there certainly are some reasons it is valid. I agree that unless there are dire circumstances later in pregnancy, there absolutely should be a time limit to getting one VERY early on in pregnancy.
I really kinda hate that we even have this as an issue. It pits too many people against others. I try to be rational, but life isn't always dictated by rationality.

a reply to: Ellie Sagan

I admit there are gray areas, but I don't think a legal choice should be murdering an unborn person for the simple reason that one wants to.

So, in summary, you believe that a fertilized egg is a person and all abortion is murder. You also believe that abortion on demand should not be legal.

Basically, you believe that your opinion, the opinion that you align yourself with, should be forced to be the only option for all women that find them with an unwanted pregnancy.

My choice would be for a woman to be selfless enough to carry the baby at least, and then let it be adopted.

That's a big ask, especially since most women seeking abortions already are mothers.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Shades of gray all around. I think it shouldn't be easy to get an abortion. It shows a distinct lack of respect for life. If the baby is suffering or the mom is in danger are the only reasons I think it should be done. That would be respecting life. I think the only thing that makes it a baby in some people's eyes is if it is wanted. If it's not wanted? It's a cluster of cells. If it's wanted? It's a baby from the beginning. That's not very scientific. For example, a couple keeps trying to have a baby, they finally concieve. To them it's most certainly a baby from the beginning. If someone has sex and accidentally gets pregnant, then they may see it as a clump of cells in the uterus.

originally posted by: Ellie Sagan
a reply to: Boadicea

When I said “you guys,” I meant that you completely agreed with the poster who said it. So yeah, you essentially said it, too.

I assume that you are referring to the comment that there was quite a bit of misogyny in the thread, to which I agreed. And I still do. But you are extrapolating quite a bit from that little exchange. Too much in fact.

Also, you brought up the misogynist tag when someone used the word “hysterical.” That's pretty much a male/female thing.

Redefining words is quite the thing these days, eh? Especially when one wants to gaslight others...

But it doesn't change the fact that "hysterical" is literally an insulting description for a woman. Of Greek origin, the root word "hyster" literally means "uterus" or "womb," which of course is unique to the female anatomy.

Furthermore, I didn't even know you were females until you two made it clear that it was an issue. Perhaps I presumed that you thought it was men who were the abortion opponents due to you making gender an issue worthy to be mentioned here. My bad.

Quite a few assumptions and presumptions and inferences there.

As far as my personal experience, no, I do not think I'm a hero. Just giving a little background, as you see fit to do also about your own life. I'm sorry you had to go through the pain and suffering with the ectopic pregnancy. I'm glad to hear you decided to let the next pregnancy take it's course. I too was faced with needing a surgery on a condition that could get worse, that wasn't discovered until I was pregnant, that could have killed the baby (the surgery that is). I decided to wait until after I had him. I don't see that as me being a hero, or “badass,” as you call yourself. I just knew that he deserved a chance at life. I didn't see mine as more important than his.

Well, I do think you were a badass. That requires strength, courage and perseverance that many simply do not possess.

I'm very insulted that you think that a woman would say she has a certain opinion simply to get the attention and approval of men.

Unfortunately, there are such women.

Am I just a stupid, shallow woman who can't possible agree with what men say on a topic? I guess I shouldn't be insulted by what a stranger says on the internet --

I agree 100%!!!

-- but, it seems you have a real negative view of women who don't share all your opinions. I could be wrong, but that's how your statements come off.

I have no problem with women or men who have different opinions. I have no problem with anyone doing for themselves and by themselves as they so choose. I have a big problem with anyone -- woman or man -- forcing their will on others. Especially when they do so with no regard or concern for the hardships it brings.

Oh, and the childish retort at the end of your post doesn't make it easy to take you seriously.

Okay. Bummer.... but I've already been accused of far worse than being "childish" by one of those men who you are defending, while criticizing me. So... again... boo freaking hoo!

a reply to: Ellie Sagan

Shades of gray all around. I think it shouldn't be easy to get an abortion. It shows a distinct lack of respect for life.

I disagree. I think every child should be wanted, loved and cherished, not forced upon its parents. Anything else shows a disrespect for life.

If we truly respected life, we'd be looking to place unwanted foster children in forever homes, before demanding more domestic infants to adopt out from women forced to carry unwanted pregnancies to term.

I think the only thing that makes it a baby in some people's eyes is if it is wanted. If it's not wanted? It's a cluster of cells. If it's wanted? It's a baby from the beginning. That's not very scientific.

That's perception. Perception isn't scientific. There is no science on personhood.

a reply to: TonyS

As I see it, reversing Roe kicks the issue back to the States.

That's all it does. Roe v. Wade established a Federal right that never existed previously and Federal law that was never legislated. Both were against the spirit and letter of the US Constitution. If the decision follows the leaked opinion, that mistake will simply be corrected.

Worse, that illegal law was then used to bash men over the head, literally trying to remove their right to speak out on issues. The first time I was told to "sit down and shut up; you're just a man" on the issue I didn't think much of it. One nutter throwing a hissy fit. But after thousands and thousands of such remarks, I realized that Roe v. Wade wasn't just an illegal law concerning abortion; it was an illegal law that was an open door for removing Constitutional protections from anyone deemed "unworthy."

That, exemplified by the recent lunacy in this very thread, is why Roe v. Wade must be struck down. At any cost. Not to change abortion rights, as the states that now allow full and free abortion will still be able to do so. Other states will simply no longer be forced to comply with the most fringe elements of society.

I don't think many people have even read the leaked opinion from Justice Alito. It clearly lays out why the right to an abortion is not implied in the 14th amendment, and states that such a right is neither enumerated nor implied in the US Constitution. And yet, enough people are now clamoring for a Federal law from Congress codifying Roe v. Wade that some legislators are actively trying to push one through. Perhaps it is best that they are already admitting they don't have the votes, because the result would be that law getting slapped down by the Supreme Court on the basis of the 10th Amendment. Considering that we already have illegal protests over a leaked first draft of an opinion that isn't even binding at this stage, what would the result of two actual decisions back to back denying a Federal right to abortion be? Dead Supreme Court Justices?

No, the only thing anyone is actually arguing for here, despite any claims to the contrary, is to be able to decide what everyone else in the country must do. Control of others is one of the most evil goals i know of. And the lengths to which some would resort to hold onto the right to determine the lives of others is even scarier than the wildest imaginations of pro-abortion fanatics.

TheRedneck


o

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Ellie Sagan

Shades of gray all around. I think it shouldn't be easy to get an abortion. It shows a distinct lack of respect for life.

I think every child should be wanted, loved and cherished, not forced upon its parents. Anything else a disrespect for life.

I am VERY PRO-LIVING CHILDREN.

Until every LIVING child is cared for, loved, educated, housed, etc -- it needs to be the right of everyone to choose not to bring another unwanted child into this world.

AND -- there needs to be mandatory paternal DNA testing of every born child.

originally posted by: Ellie Sagan
a reply to: Boadicea

I agree that every pregnancy has risks. If it's so risky though, it would seem that people would put more thought into having sex.

Well, I'd like to think so as well. Then again, my dad was a perennial Boy Scout who lived by the motto, "Be prepared." It was drilled into my head to look ahead, to think ahead, to plan and prepare, to take reasonable precautions for reasonable risks... all the while also understanding that one cannot prepare for every eventuality. I'm guessing you were taught to think ahead as well, and probably learned much by living, given your experience. Life is a powerful teacher!

Generally speaking, women's health issues have always been somewhat relegated to the back burners, which accounts for lack of proper information and knowledge. I think this is compounded by too many living for instant gratification, and never looking beyond the present. And further compounded by a "that can't happen to me" mindset... until it does, and then they are totally unprepared to deal with the circumstances.

The fact remains, in my opinion, the vast majority of people who have elective abortions, simply do not need to do so.

By "need" I am assuming that you mean strictly medical need, and I would agree. I would not agree that is the only relevant criteria, however -- for me -- it is the major criteria. I cannot in good conscience use the force of law to put a woman into a life-threatening situation whether we are aware of a specific threat or not.

I do agree that this issue remains a complicated one. For the record, I used to be completely against it, until I read more about it and decided that there certainly are some reasons it is valid. I agree that unless there are dire circumstances later in pregnancy, there absolutely should be a time limit to getting one VERY early on in pregnancy.

I was once completely opposed to abortion as well, but had to reconsider when cold cruel reality smacked me upside the head. The easiest answers aren't necessarily the best answers. And I think this is one of those times when sometimes there are no good answers, we can only try to determine the best answers. (Such as the earlier the better.)

We cannot stop abortions. Nature makes it possible, and there will always be women who will do so. A total ban on abortions will only allow society to punish women after the fact. It will not stop it happening to begin with. And quite frankly, I'm not good with purely punitive reactions where there is no corrective recourse or remedy. We cannot bring the baby back...

I really kinda hate that we even have this as an issue. It pits too many people against others. I try to be rational, but life isn't always dictated by rationality.

I hate it as well. Especially because the national debate and discussion always focuses on the extremes -- all or nothing. Neither works, and never will.

a reply to: Boadicea

"hysterical" is literally an insulting description for a woman. Of Greek origin, the root word "hyster" literally means "uterus" or "womb," which of course is unique to the female anatomy.

hysteria from the Merriam-Webster English dictionary:

1 : a psychoneurosis marked by emotional excitability and disturbances of the psychogenic, sensory, vasomotor, and visceral (see visceral sense 4) functions

2 : behavior exhibiting overwhelming or unmanageable fear or emotional excess

// political hysteria
// The plague had caused mass hysteria in the village.

The same root word (which you are technically correct as to its entymology) also gives us "hysterical," a word which means extreme laughter or extremely funny. I consider Jeff Foxworthy is hysterical. I consider Jeff Dunham to be hysterical. I even think Larry the Cable Guy is hysterical at times. Are they women? Do they have a uterus?

Surprise! I don't speak Greek. This is an English forum.

Present usage of the words thus derived have had no sexual connotation at least since 1792... until now, thanks to you. Maybe you should publish a list of what words are offensive to you? No one else can read your mind (nor do I have any desire to do so). Or you can walk around with that chip on your shoulder and be called hysterical when you go hysterical; your choice.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Sookiechacha

I think every child should be wanted, loved and cherished, not forced upon its parents. Anything else shows a disrespect for life.

Including killing it.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Or you can walk around with that chip on your shoulder and be called hysterical when you go hysterical; your choice.

Just gotta start up again, eh?

You will use whatever offensive words you want to use. Make whatever cowardly excuses you want to make.

I will take offense (or pitiable amusement) wherever and for whatever reason I so choose.

a reply to: Annee

there needs to be mandatory paternal DNA testing of every born child.

Need to nip this little exercise in idiocy in the bud right now before some talking head on the MSM reads it and we have a national referendum or something.

Paternity testing does not work that way. DNA samples are taken from the child, the mother, and any candidates for fatherhood. Computer analysis then is used to determine the likelihood of the child being the offspring of the mother and each of the candidates. The result is expressed as a statistical probability of the candidate being the father.

It is not 100% accurate. The accuracy is typically in the upper 90-percentile range, but not 100%. The remaining questionability is resolved via the mother's testimony as to who she had been with. If she was with Joe, Bob, and Tim, and the probabilities are Joe-23%, Bob-11%, and Tim-97%, we conclude that Tim is the father.

To do a full paternity test to absolutely determine paternity would require a DNA sample on file for every person on the planet. So much for body autonomy. In addition, we would always have a group to choose from instead of a single individual, and thus could never completely establish paternity if not for the mother's testimony about who she had sex with. To get around that would require that everyone who engages in sexual relations report such every time to some central agency.

We would also have the majority of parents who do not even need testing. I have never questioned my paternity for my two children... my wife has been faithful to me. So why do we need a paternity test? Just in case some guy in Nepal hopped a plane without anyone noticing, flew to Alabama, did the hanky-panky with my wife while she was asleep, hopped another plane back to Nepal, and was never noticed?

That is one of the more inane ideas I have ever heard.

TheRedneck