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.
I clearly stated that I'm talking about a cohort of people on the left who were advocating for vaccine mandates.
When something doesn't suit your opinion it's easy to dismiss it out of hand I suppose.
Why are you trying to demean poor women?
"Forty-nine percent of abortion patients have an income below the poverty line, according to the Guttmacher Institute. And in Louisiana, where Haywood lives, the maternal mortality rate is one of the worst in the nation, especially among Black women. The state has since shuttered its abortion clinics, though a Louisiana judge temporarily blocked enforcement of the state's "trigger" abortion ban Monday.
"For the Black women I work with who already fear entering the health care system, this just exacerbates that even more," Haywood said. "The idea that somebody in the state that doesn't care what we say about Louisiana, in the state that doesn't care about people, that people will have to carry a child to term when they're already living in substandard housing, when their children are not getting the best education, when they can barely see their families."
https://www.google.com/amp/s/abcnews.go.com/amp/US/poor-women-color-bear-brunt-abortion-bans-roe/story%3fid=85782890
You really haven't a clue what you're talking about when it comes to poor women's access to healthcare. I'd love to see how smug you'd be if you were in their shoes.
a broadly Christian one probably won't or will limit it more.
You are aware this decision has been condemned by many Jewish groups in the US because as you point out, it's a Christian-derived one. Judaism puts the rights of the woman first.
https://www.algemeiner.com/2022/06/24/us-jewish-groups-lament-supreme-court-roe-v-wade-reversal/
And, at least till the other recent decision in the US, there was separation of Church and State, something the RCC has been against forever but that's a side discussion.
Nonsense, there was regulation and iniatives to reduce/avoid spreading infection.
If you wanted to get covid you were welcome to it, the right to spread it to others, that was not allowed.
That tired old argument is just nonsense.
But couples who already have kids also do it.... Should they just all stop having sex?
And everyone's situation is different, hence plenty abortions being women who already have children who simply can't afford to have more or don't want more(which is perfectly fine). Your logic is put them under greater fiscal and emotional strain.
It's a bit like real world factors don't matter to you. Instead it's outrage about narcissism. Which is pretty funny since you're the guy who loved Trump who is one of the greatest narcissists going.
I'm glad you brought up that example because "a lot of couples dont want to have kids" is a far cry from "poor women who have no access to medial care".
These are the people who need to take responsibility and stop living in a narcissistic reality where having a baby is a problem
Mental gymnastics?
You either support the notion of bodily autonomy or you don't.
What was proposed by some during covid was that the choice to take a vaccine should be removed for what was to some considered the greater good. That took choice away from the individual, in which case bodily autonomy was not worthy of respect. In the case of abortion bodily autonomy should never be taken away. There is clearly a conflict here stemming from people's beliefs and not a rational analysis of the the constant in the two situations, namely bodily autonomy.
I never stated that people were being held down and forcefully vaccinated against their will.
I highlighted that there are a cohort of people who were happy to in theory do away with bodily autonomy when it came to covid but now want bodily autonomy respected in the case of abortion.
None of your long winded emotional diatribe did anything to contradict that.
Don't judge me by the standards you set for yourself please.
Who said it had to be for one night stands? A lot of couples don't want kids and so the guy would just not have everything put right until they did. Or potentially a guy has several partners, each for a period while finding the "one" and they have kids together. Honestly as far as suggestions go it is the most likely to cut down on the number of abortions that happen. As is no matter what laws are passed anyone who can will end up in more friendly areas or with back alley abortions. Obviously you will still have medical issues.
This is literally the definition of being responsible for the choices you make and being responsible with the power to create new life.
Are you against most forms of contraceptives that mess with various ways the female body works or is it just males that shouldn't be messed with? Like really, check out the side effects on most of those.
I know a married man who chose to get a vasectomy as he and his wife decided to not have children. So nope, not just got one night stands. It seems like you have a very narrow definition of responsibility.
I've seen a few people mention this "forcing women to have babies" and I just can't understand where it's coming from. Overturning Roe v Wade doesn't force anyone to have a baby, in fact it doesn't ban abortion at all.
What it does mean is that in States where they will look to ban it then those should be held accountable at the ballot box. It also means that the Senate should get up off it's lazy arses and start trying to legislate instead of leaving important issues to a panel of 9.
This really should be a watershed moment for both Federal and State elections. They need to legislate for what the people they supposedly represent want and if that doesn't happen they should be kicked out of office at the first opportunity. Pelosi and her ilk have been at the trough long enough now to have made some inroads on this particular issue but in all honesty they were just as happy to sit back and let the SC do it's thing because it suited them. They should have been working hard over the past 40 years to actually get this legislation through and take the SC out of the equation.
Personally I think that things like "small government" are incoherent.
A government excerises authority full stop. Authority is exercised in favour of 'the good' (however you define that)
An atheist-dominated state is going to allow abortions and a broadly Christian one probably won't or will limit it more.
So the only question is a sort of wonkish constitutional one about whether authority should be devolved to the state level or not.
Hispanics migrating to California and Texas may increase religiosity in these places. Hispanics are traditionally Catholic but many are Protestants as Evangelicals are all over Latin America making converts.
Also Mormons have more children than ordinary non-Mormons so from an anthropological point of view they may increase and expand beyond Utah in the future.
Imagine two or three Mormon-dominated states instead of one!
Responsibility = become accountable for the choices you make
Self-centered nascisism = mess with your reproductive organs for the sake of endless one-night stands
'Notwithstanding that, the “Left” (whatever that means in today’s broadbrush world) did not advocate literally forcing people to get vaccinated'
In Italy, Canada, Australia, and some smaller countries like Lithuania, the authorities were for disemploying people and destroying their livelihoods if they didn't meet this "health requirement".
That is very extreme pressure. It counts as putting people under duress albeit it isn't literally forcing them to take it that's true.
Fully expecting the response to this to be that it’s ‘childish’ or ‘unhinged’.
This isn’t the “gotcha” that you seem to think it is — and that’s coming from someone who was highly critical of the Covid approach and the societal hysteria that came with it.
There are quite a few degrees of difference in severity between temporarily imposing measures that require people to be vaccinated to access certain workplaces or bars / restaurants and literally forcing a woman to undergo a pregnancy which poses significant and potentially lifelong physiological, psychological and socioeconomic effects. Pregnancy, particularly unwanted pregnancy, is a potentially tremendously scarring thing for both a woman’s body and her quality of life.The Covid vaccine was literally designed to lessen the risk of people contracting a potentially serious illness. Notwithstanding that, the “Left” (whatever that means in today’s broadbrush world) did not advocate literally forcing people to get vaccinated — there may have been certain people who “talked” about it, but it was never popular enough on any side of the sociopolitical spectrum to ever be implemented.
It’s rich to talk about moral and logical flexibility when you are comparing mere “talk” about holding someone down and shoving the vaccine into them, and the very real, solid and widely-advocated stance of literally forcing a woman to undergo a full pregnancy against her will as being one in the same thing.
Contagiousness has nothing do with their point though, absolutely nothing. The point is about bodily autonomy, as very few people respected their right to theirs, yet many of the same people who showed no respect to said right at the time, are now using the same argument for themselves. The illogic isn't on their side, it's on yours.
Another point that we kept hearing during that period too, was "even if it saves one life, it's worth it". Oddly, that logic isn't applied to the unborn either.
Last week tonight featured abortion ruling - spot on as usual. He really didn't go easy on the democrat "response" and rightly so.
The thing is this poster isn't "pro-life", he's "anti-women". Sad to think we have such people in Ireland.
What clear comparison? One is a healthcare choice that only affects the woman involved. The other is a communicable disease that kills vulnerable members of our society. Your mental gymnastics in a desperate attempt to portray a comparison doesn't make it in anyway valid.
So you find that idea revolting but forcing a woman to have a child isn't? Of course. Abortion is a perfectly legitimate way of dealing with "the reality of things", you just don't like it. Well tough shït.
I wouldn't be so sure about that. It will need to be argued very carefully though.
You have a very strange idea of what responsible means. Taking responsibility for your choice to have sex was something you've been banging on about. What's more responsible than a vasectomy for a man? Takes all the load off of his partner, very responsible. Let's face it, you just want to put all the onus on the women. I'd suggest you think about it, it might improve your access to real live women.
Pregnancy isn't contagious is the main one.
But I'm sure some pro lifers/anti maskers think it is.
And, reversible if you so choose, too.
They are relatively cheap when compared to other forms of contraceptives. Especially as they last forever and don't need topping up while other methods are cheaper initially they add up over time. Especially stuff like the pill which you really need to keep up even if you are having a dry spell. Planned Parenthood may also charge less depending on your income.
https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/birth-control/vasectomy/how-do-i-get-vasectomy
There is nothing responsible and adult about getting a vasectomy to avoid a pregnancy. The idea is revolting
Not everything can be resolved with chopping off body parts. Sometimes you just need to deal with the reality of things. Have a baby, start a family, deal with life
There isn’t a chance in hell of it being successful with the current make up of the court. It’s not about the law, it’s about their own beliefs and using legalese to justify it.
Where the illogic in the position? You certainly haven't shown it in your post. If the reasoning if so poor you should have no bother showing explaining it to us.
The whole abortion = anti vax/anti mask was only used by eejits to try and excuse the illogical crap they were dribbling out.
Quite surprised to see that argument escape the relaxation of restrictions thread lol.
No, there's a clear comparison you're just being contrary.
If I said something was black you'd say it was white.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wd.vanillicon.com/v2/dbba4c22aa1d352d2cdbb076e36aea8c.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w2.vanillicon.com/v2/24615175400ae675a1f589d8e5bd3285.svg)
