The Right religious conservatives and who knows who else have today overturned the constitutional right to abortion in the US.
Will this now embolden anti abortionists in this country to fight back?
The US is a cold place for women now.
You could go to a state where its legal.
Or you could accept the responsibility of your actions. Like an adult.
not 100%
plus, you're saying if those methods fail, tough sh*t, you're having the kid
Not having a child you are unable to care for is being responsible. They do deal with the consequences
pill, condoms, have heard of these?
The content of children books is regulated by the law, it's not and can not be the recipient of free speech. You must know that
You asked for evidence, you got evidence.
CTR is taught in universities, these are maths books for children that apply the teachings of CTR, as explained in the links
There are plenty of additional examples on line, it took me a minute to find them
Can hope the Dems might finally realise that there's no point playing a game by the rules if the other side don't. It's a nice, warm feeling being superior to the other lot but it's a bit hollow when the GOP manage to get their **** done.
Taking extreme examples and conflatng them is a nonsense also.
But then that's your style I suppose, nonsense.
There should be freedom of religion and freedom from religion but schools should give teachers a second chance if they inadvertently p!ss off parents.
By the sounds of it, it was a bit of a huddle after a match and it's easy enough to say to a teacher you don't want your kid to do that. I have no strong view on it and would not be seeking out my pitchfork the way many do. Running the man's contract down or not renewing it was a cleaner way to solve the problem. It's really all a bit medieval at times on the religious frontline.
Religious one isn't great either. It would be like saying a teacher at an Educate Together school in Ireland is allowed to lead children in prayer during school hours (and potentially giving kids who join them in prayer preferential treatment) and the principle or board of directors cant do anything about it. If they want to teach in a religious school they can just go work in one.
Very much doubt that they would have sided with a Mr Mohammed who had gotten fired for refusing to stop trying to lead his class in an Islamic prayer in Alabama. The US is on its way to becoming an extremist Christian State in all but name (waiting to be told to 'relax', like many were when they said Roe v Wade was at risk).
Unfortunately it is a majority view of the 95% of europeans who have access to abortion that the value of the unborn is less than the will of the woman giving birth. Why are you so against Western values?
AOC, unsurprisingly, looking for impeachment, on their misleading of the Senate on their position. A simple House majority can do so but needs 2/3 of Senate to remove them.
Today the SC ruled in favour of a coach sacked for praying, personally have no issue with that one at all. There will be another final batch starting on Wednesday to wrap up the term, including one on the authority of the EPA. Sounds like they all want to make a run for the country houses.
You can't equate a referendum ran by an independent commission to the decision by 6 unelected justices, 5 of which were not nominated by the person who did not receive the most votes, and the same justices who have ruled in a way that allows for each state to gerrymandered to resist the will of the people and enforce their own religious ideologies.
Those are the acts/events cause the loss of the unborn baby. I'm talking about the unborn baby itself, this would be exact same baby in both scenarios. It either has an intrinsic value or it doesn't. You don't seem to think it does.
im not a lib.
if a potential child is the result of rape, are you arguing that a rapist should be able to force a rape victim to give birth?
personal responsibility....again with trying to shame and punish a woman for having sex.
There's many, many ways to stop a potential pregnancy in the very early stages, so it really is a matter of self-responsibility at the end of the day. Of course they have to pretend that none of these prevention methods exist in the name of defending their poor position.
Your statements were so vague that it wasn't even clear who you were referring to
Typo - VEssEls. Just livestock really.
its not the mans body therefore he doesn't get to dictate what a woman does with hers.
A few posts back and it was the rapists child.
Like a feckin game of pass the parcel with the libs. Personal responsibility is non existent as usual in their own little utopia.
Both sides were funded from outside sources. Your post alludes that only the no side got funding which suggests a degree of naiveite.
What was achieved in the end by the repeal vote here is pretty similar to the outcome of the US SC overturning Roe V Wade.
The liberals in Ireland were dancing in Dublin Castle with joy after repeal, however they're fuming at a very similar outcome in the USA. Funny old world.
would you be in favour of changing the laws to support the child from the moment of conception?
Not in the least. I made my statements and stand over them. If someone wants to argue against something I didn't say (an all too common pattern alas) or fail to understand basic English I'm not going to waste my time on them.
i think thats whats referred to as a full retreat lol
Said belief is not in conflict with what I've just said. The law in nearly every nation in the world has decided that support starts once it was exited the womb, as that is when it is most needed. The belief that it's a child before birth or not is not in conflict with that.
Funny that you mention child support all the same when talking about choices and freedoms, because on the other end of the spectrum if a man does not want a child, and the women does, he has no choice. He's saddled with the financial burden regardless of what he wants. Yet men would be viewed as monsters if they started screaming "WHY WALLET MY CHOICE"
I'm not going to make you see things my way. I'm at peace with that and am moving on with my Monday evening. Feel free to do the same.
another poster referred to it as murder and that was the post i was replying to.
you seem to have a problem in differentiating between a wanted and unwanted pregnancy.
Not quite sure what sort of mental gymnastics you're trying to perform here.
If it is the off-topic book ban - yes, telling teachers they cannot use a book because you disagree with tiny elements of it due to your political ideology is a ban.
If it is the on-topic abortion Supreme Court decision - yes, allowing states to ban abortion is banning abortion and in many cases IVF treatment bans also (while also implying that bans on same sex marriage, same sex relationships, and contraception should also be reconsidered to be allowed).
when im talking about child support, im talking about getting it from the government and if the parents are not together, then the father also must pay child support to the mother from the moment of conception.
and yes, if a benefit is universal everyone gets it. if there is a cut-off point established to prevent wealthy people from getting a benefit they don't need, then yes, take it back at tax time. wheres the issue?
Emmm no.
To begin with all the things that you need for a newborn are generally bought before the birth of the child. If you are going to have a baby then you need this stuff ahead of time. Afterwards you have to be doing and a baby to look after which is tough enough if you haven't prepped for it.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w2.vanillicon.com/v2/282101dc2976956f9dfc87f7a2ef2413.svg)
