RvW Overturned - Abortions Now Illegal

[drumdude]

While there's a part of me that intuits that harassing the Supreme Court judges is wrong and not cool, there's another part of me that wonders, "What recourse do people have to continue to control their own lives and not let the government trample basic freedoms?"

From that perspective, I hope Kavanaugh never gets a break from it. Douche bag. I mean, what do they actually expect when, with one ill-conceived decision, they “F” over every citizen?

I agree with Gunnar. The 6 that voted in favor should all be impeached for deceiving the country under oath. “F”, they should all be disbarred.

This country has way too many damned morons in control of it.

There you have it.

If threatening and harassing the Supreme Court justices is on the table for you and your ilk, well, expect divisions to continue and worsen. Asking for harassment to be perpetual because you did not like a ruling that makes sense for someone that you disagree with, well, that is just more of an insurrectionist position than even I expected out of my leftist liberals.

I mean when you're forcing a woman in Texas to carry around a dead fetus inside her for 2 weeks...

Expect divisions to continue to worsen.

[Binger]

There you have it.

If threatening and harassing the Supreme Court justices is on the table for you and your ilk, well, expect divisions to continue and worsen. Asking for harassment to be perpetual because you did not like a ruling that makes sense for someone that you disagree with, well, that is just more of an insurrectionist position than even I expected out of my leftist liberals.

I mean when you're forcing a woman in Texas to carry around a dead fetus inside her for 2 weeks...

Expect divisions to continue to worsen.

We agree on that too.

[Morley]

What about people who think that abortion should be legal and also think the states should be able to make that happen?

If you think the states should be able to make that happen, then you must also believe that the states should be allowed to prevent it from happening.

To clarity: You think a woman should be have the right to control her own reproductive system. But you also think that the state should be allowed to take away that right.

Are you making a serious argument here or are you just dicking around?

No argument. Just a question. And you can't possibly be serious where you state, as a point of clarity, what "[ I] think." You are very wrong.

I've been out of touch, so missed this.

My apologies, Binger. I didn't know you were being rhetorical. I thought you were trying to make a point with your question. Let me turn my own statements into the questions they should have been.

Do you think a woman should be have the right to control her own reproductive system? [I had the impression that you did.]

Do you also think that the state should be allowed to take away that right? [I had thought you did, as part of your argument for states' rights.]


...

Edit to add:

Your if>then statement is also flawed.

Do you think the states should have the right to allow abortion? Do you think the states should have the right to outlaw abortion? [It seems that believing one would logically lead to believing the other.]

How about the same questions as they apply to the federal government?

I'm asking, so that we have a baseline for discussion.

[Binger]

If you think the states should be able to make that happen, then you must also believe that the states should be allowed to prevent it from happening.

To clarity: You think a woman should be have the right to control her own reproductive system. But you also think that the state should be allowed to take away that right.

Are you making a serious argument here or are you just dicking around?

No argument. Just a question. And you can't possibly be serious where you state, as a point of clarity, what "[ I] think." You are very wrong.
Your if>then statement is also flawed.

I've been out of touch, so missed this.

My apologies, Binger. Let me turn these into the questions they should have been.

Do you think a woman should be have the right to control her own reproductive system? (I had the impression that you did.)

Do you also think that the state should be allowed to take away that right? (I thought you did, as part of your argument for federalism.)

I think that a woman should have the right to do what she chooses with her body.
I think that states should be allowed to legislate according their own laws within the confines of federal laws and state constitutions.
Her body, her choice.
Since it is topical, I also believe that it is her body and her choice and she should not be coerced or threatened if she makes a choice to not take a vaccine that she believes may affect her reproductive system. Even if she is wrong about the vaccine according to my information or your information or Ron Perlman's information, I believe that a woman should have the right to choose.

[Gunnar]

How not to protest the reversal of Roe v Wade.

Washington Post: Kavanaugh neighbors say protesters are targeting residents, calling them Karens and fascists

Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s neighbors are fed up with the actions of protesters near their homes as some engaging in pro-choice activism have chosen to personally target residents, rather than heed noise complaints.

As foolish and unjust was the recent court decision reversing Roe v Wade, these kind of protests are just as foolish, because they are counterproductive to the goals of the protesters.

"They just call us fascists," Lyric Winik, a resident of the neighborhood, told The Post. "Nothing about this is healthy. We’ve got kids on this street scared to leave their homes."

She noted that a vast majority of people in the neighborhood believe the protesters have "gotten out of control." Calls to reduce the noise has been met with even louder responses, including a new chant that labels neighbors as "Karens." Winik said that she believes their actions are counterproductive to their pro-choice message.

[Gunnar]

Women Face Risks as Doctors Struggle With Medical Exceptions on Abortion

Amid the legal wrangling, hospitals have struggled with where and how to draw the line. Some have enlisted special panels of doctors and lawyers to decide when a pregnancy can be prematurely. ended. Others have required multiple doctors to sign off on any such decision and document in detail why an abortion was necessary.

The result has delayed treatment and heightened risk, doctors said.

“It’s like you bring lots of people to the top of a high rise and push them to the edge and then catch them before they fall,” said Dr. Alireza A. Shamshirsaz, an obstetrician and fetal surgeon who practiced in Houston until last month. “It’s a very dangerous way of practicing. All of us know some of them will die.”

“It’s all odds,” said Dr. Charles Brown, the Texas district chair of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. “How high a percentage does it need to take before you get everyone to agree this woman’s life is in danger?”

After Oklahoma’s abortion ban went into effect in May, Dr. Christina Bourne got a call from a patient who had an ectopic pregnancy that her obstetrician had refused to treat.

Dr. Bourne is the medical director at two abortion clinics, one in Oklahoma City and one just over the state border in Wichita, Kan., where abortion is still legal. After consultation with the clinics’ lawyers, she said, they had the woman come in to their Wichita clinic. By that time, she was already experiencing abdominal pain and bleeding and had to be transferred to a hospital for treatment; doctors there terminated the pregnancy.

“The people that we are seeing are much sicker than they were before,” Dr. Bourne said. “We are seeing the effects of a failed system. Pregnancy is where all the failed systems come to coalesce.”

[Some Schmo]

I have a friend who was raised Catholic, and he is convinced that the number one thrust of Christian churches is birth. All things lead to having babies:

- Get married ASAP
- Have as many kids as possible
- No contraception
- No abortions
- Education is a lower priority
- Financial stability is a lower priority
- Mental fitness is a lower priority

Essentially, the message is have as many kids as you can, because that's what pleases god (i. e. that's the easiest way to grow an ignorant congregation that keeps giving up their money to the church).

I can totally understand why he feels that way. Seems insightful, really.

O cum, all ye faithful, cum and have more children,
O cum ye, o cum ye and have a ton of kids...

[Kishkumen]

If people want to prioritize having children, they can certainly do so while others exercise their right not to have children. It boggles my mind that those who want to have lots of children seem to think it is necessary for them to force others to do the same. Women who chose to have abortions were not infringing the rights of religious people not to have abortions. These religious people should not have the right to interfere with right of other women to terminate their own pregnancies.

Moreover, the conviction of one group that believes personhood begins at conception should not have priority over other contrary views, when the definition of personhood is as fuzzy as it clearly is.

[Gadianton]

Asking for harassment to be perpetual because you did not like a ruling that makes sense for someone that you disagree with

Perpetual harassment didn't seem to be a problem when it was the "Freedom convoy" doing it, and the target, the residents of Ottawa didn't even cause the problem.

[Binger]

Asking for harassment to be perpetual because you did not like a ruling that makes sense for someone that you disagree with

Perpetual harassment didn't seem to be a problem when it was the "Freedom convoy" doing it, and the target, the residents of Ottawa didn't even cause the problem.

So you don't approve of perpetual harassment? Or you just don't approve of it when the "Freedom Convoy" protested?