Leaked/breaking:Roe v. Wade expected to be overturned

[JCSR]

This guy isn't fooling me. He's setting himself up to boink all those fat ugly chicks. Very clever.

 

[foszoe]

This guy isn't fooling me. He's setting himself up to boink all those fat ugly chicks. Very clever.


View attachment 208351

If he was really remorseful. He would cut his penis off in the garage with a box cutter.

 

[JCSR]

If he was really remorseful. He would cut his penis off in the garage with a box cutter.

As every good liberal man should do.

 

[Hatin Since 87]

This guy isn't fooling me. He's setting himself up to boink all those fat ugly chicks. Very clever.


View attachment 208351

Hey! Theres a solution!


Lets do the math.



20% move to lib states where they can get abortions.

20% of lib men staying in red states get vasectomy's.

10% stop being hoes and getting pregnant acting responsible sexually.


Idk about you, but the future is looking pretty conservative and i like it

 

[JCSR]

10% stop being hoes and getting pregnant acting responsible sexually.

This will never happen cause hoes gotta hoe

 

[Cameramonkey]

Lame a** liberals neutering themselves?
Thats a big fat win for humanity.

 

[Hatin Since 87]

 

[Tombs]

 

[Lebowski]

I think most people would support abortion in the case of rape / incest or in events where the mother could die from giving birth and no other feasible option with a low risk for survival for the mother existed. Unfortunately it was never presented as an option to allow just that.

The issue is that the left has hijacked those talking points to make it seem incredibly common and the reason why abortion is so valuable to them when ignoring the fact that the vast majority of abortions are performed as a direct result of irresponsibility from the would be parents. Condoms and other forms of birth control are more effective than the vaccine... They should try it. Let's face it, the majority of the women shreaking about this aren't fighting for those cases specifically. They're fighting to continue their degenerate and unsafe lifestyles.

But now it's an all for nothing game. I think the common middle ground is allowing it for the actually legitimate and rare exceptions as highlighted in my first line. Rape, incest, medically documented risk to the mother.

Additionally, what protection are there for the men in the states where abortion will remain legal? If my girlfriend can decide to terminate the life of our offsrping, planned or unplanned, why do I still get stuck with the bill if I decide I'm not ready for parenthood and leave her, and move on with my life? The dudes still get dragged through the mud in the legal system when they don't want to be a parent, being forced to pay child support, having their payments garnished all because the lady wants to be a mother. But when the would-be mother decides she isn't responsible enough or 'ready' to be a mother, she can scoop her little problem away without guilt or shame from her peers.

 

[LeftyGunner]

I've heard this statement many times and hadn't had an opportunity to ask a clarifying question (and I may have watched too many crime stories).

There is a unique, independent set of DNA created at the moment the egg and sperm meet - it is not the mothers, it is not the fathers. How does the 'absolute authority over their own body' argument reconcile itself with the presence of another set of DNA? If it is not the mother, and it is not the father?

The DNA is unique, but a pre-viability fetus is the exact opposite of independent.

While in-utero, that “unique individual” is entirely dependent on the cooperation of its mother to survive to birth: she eats for, respires for, and processes the waste for that “independent individual”, and she does so at her own peril…a non-zero number of American women die during otherwise routine childbirth, countless more carry permanent injury or disability following their pregnancy.

My argument is that a woman herself, not the government or society at large, faces the risks associated with pregnancy and birth, and no other person on the planet can assume those risks for her, so no other person can assert consent to those risks for her.

A woman can reassess her risk at any time during pregnancy, and she may decide those risks to her are too great to continue a pregnancy, even a wanted one.

In my view, “we” don’t get a say in the life of that child until it joins us in our world. Until birth the life of an unborn child belongs to the the mother alone, and she alone gets to decide which “unique individuals” get to pass through her body.

 

[AndreusMaximus]

This thread is moving so fast I almost missed your reply.

Does a person have a right to alter their own reproductive organs? To what degree?

Does a man have an absolute right to perform a vasectomy, or does the government have a legitimate stake in stopping that activity?

In my view, he does and it does not.

Does a woman have an absolute right to a hysterectomy if she is certain she never wants to carry a pregnancy to term or experience delivery without permission from the state?

In my view, she does.

Does a pregnant woman still have that right?

In my view, she still does.

The uterus that an unborn child needs to sustain life belongs to a completely different person, and she can do whatever she wants with it - including having it surgically removed - regardless of the contents of the organ.

“Fetal Rights” can too easily be used as a Trojan horse for state control over bodily (and reproductive) liberty. I am far more comfortable with a pregnant woman speaking for the life inside her than I am with the state doing so.

Again, I don’t see abortion as murder, because in my view a person has absolute authority over their own body, including anything (or anyone) else inside it.

Murder is unjustified homicide. Even if we could agree that abortion is homicide, I will still argue that the right to arbitrate justification belongs to the individual (woman) over the state.

Thanks for the reply! Yes, I'm having trouble keeping track of this thread, too Even though I get a notification when someone replies to my post, even that is getting buried with all the notifications generated in this thread.

So, to hopefully help keep things on track, let me first state what I think we have covered so far. For the sake of the below conversation, I'm going to assume two things 1) That a fetus is a person with full human rights (since you said you think this doesn't change the morality of abortion I'm going to guess you're okay with taking this as a given, at least for the sake of conversation?) 2) A person has an absolute right to full bodily autonomy (I still have some reservations about this, but for the purposes of this conversation at the moment I'll take it as an assumption.)

In my mind there is a fundamental difference between taking a fetus out of someone's body, and killing the fetus.

If we accept the principle of absolute bodily autonomy, then I can kind of see how that would reasonably lead to saying, yes, a pregnant woman can have a hysterectomy, assuming that everything possible is done to save the life of the child who is taken out.

But in my mind this is fundamentally different from abortion. In abortion you first seek, as the primary goal, to kill the fetus, then you take the fetus out of the woman's body. In your hysterectomy example, you can take the fetus out of the woman's body intact, and if it is past the point of viability, then you can event try to help the baby survive.

So, would you be comfortable with a law that says a pregnant woman can choose that she no longer wants to have the fetus inside of her, so she can have it taken out by induced labor or surgically removing it, or whatever the woman wants, just so long as the procedure is not intentionally designed to kill the fetus, and that the hospital will take reasonable step to try to save the life of the child, once born, if it is within the range where it could be viable?

In my mind, if you go further than that, then you have to address to question of, what happened to the rights of the fetus to bodily autonomy?

 

[AndreusMaximus]

3 of my co-workers had adopted children domestically and overseas, and through foster care, they wouldn't do it again nowadays because of the process had gone so bad.

There is finite amount of people can afford adoption. The average cost to adopt a child from the U.S. is $26k-45k, while average savings for Americans is $4500. The average wait time is 18 months. Who has got that time and money? Now add the resession and inflation, you do the math.

The only easy pass it to be in the foster system, adopting your foster child is fairly cheap and straight forward.

Another exception is to adopt someone in your family.

Our government is very inefficient of doing the right thing, that's a given.

It only takes 1 bad apple so everybody else has to suffer. There are few bad parents out there over the years, abuse the kids they adopted. So the vetting process is kinda like turning your life upside down and shake it.

The private agencies are in the making money business, and intended to keep doing it. So they are not interested in making the process easier either.

Precisely! Adoption right now is a "sellers market." I know it's awful using those terms for children, but that's what it feels like it's become. There are far more couples wanting to adopt than there are children available for adoption, so the adoption agencies can do whatever the heck they want, and make it as expensive as they want.

In that sense, more children coming up for adoption in the country would be a good thing, not a bad thing. Maybe some of the thousands of couples in this country who are unable to conceive but desperately want children would have more of chance at adoption without having to spend an arm and a leg just to enter the adoption lottery.

 

[churchmouse]

What ever books can be legally thrown at the leaker should be thrown with all vigor, regardless who it was.

I still think it was someone on the left side of the court. I think their motivation is much stronger than that claimed for it to have come from the right side of the court.

I have a picture of her face in my mind if you are correct and she is one ugly woman.

 

[Kurr]

If my girlfriend can decide to terminate the life of our offsrping, planned or unplanned, why do I still get stuck with the bill if I decide I'm not ready for parenthood and leave her, and move on with my life? The dudes still get dragged through the mud in the legal system when they don't want to be a parent, being forced to pay child support, having their payments garnished all because the lady wants to be a mother.

https://familycourtmatters.org/2011...ned-about-its-share-than-kids-getting-theirs/

[family court cases can get sand-bagged] initially by magistrates, friends of the court, and commissioners who are county employees paid to create collaborative programs with county agencies like CPS and DCSS. {{meaning, Child Support agencies}} The county recieves $2 from HHS for every $1 of child support that it collects. If the state does not disburse child support after 3 years, the state and the feds split the support plus interest 66/34. The state recieves a bonus from HHS every time the open or enforce a child support case. The states are financially rewarded for opening TANF cases.

This probably deserves its own thread, but as some like to say here, "Follow the money".

This is also a good reason why we see mothers getting custody and men getting stuck with support in a majority of cases. All in the name of "For the children" but the bottom line is "income for the State"

 

[dudley0]

https://familycourtmatters.org/2011...ned-about-its-share-than-kids-getting-theirs/


This probably deserves its own thread, but as some like to say here, "Follow the money".

This is also a good reason why we see mothers getting custody and men getting stuck with support in a majority of cases. All in the name of "For the children" but the bottom line is "income for the State"

That is just disgusting

 

[chipbennett]

I think most people would support abortion in the case of rape / incest or in events where the mother could die from giving birth and no other feasible option with a low risk for survival for the mother existed. Unfortunately it was never presented as an option to allow just that.

I disagree, particularly with the latter, which is a legal exception, thus far, in 50 out of 50 states. (If that changes, then I am 100% confident such restrictions would be overturned, as they should.)

There will remain debate about rape/incest exceptions, and the will of the people in each state will determine the matter for each state, as is appropriate under our federal constitutional republic of sovereign states.

The issue is that the left has hijacked those talking points to make it seem incredibly common and the reason why abortion is so valuable to them when ignoring the fact that the vast majority of abortions are performed as a direct result of irresponsibility from the would be parents. Condoms and other forms of birth control are more effective than the vaccine... They should try it. Let's face it, the majority of the women shreaking about this aren't fighting for those cases specifically. They're fighting to continue their degenerate and unsafe lifestyles.

Worse: they intentionally and knowingly use the less than 2% as a straw man, to avoid fighting for the more than 98% of abortions that are purely elective.

But now it's an all for nothing game. I think the common middle ground is allowing it for the actually legitimate and rare exceptions as highlighted in my first line. Rape, incest, medically documented risk to the mother.

There will be other forms of middle ground, particularly around the period of gestation at which elective abortion is permitted: from none, to 6 weeks, to 10 weeks, to 15 weeks, etc. Again, the will of the people in each state will determine the matter for each state.

Additionally, what protection are there for the men in the states where abortion will remain legal? If my girlfriend can decide to terminate the life of our offsrping, planned or unplanned, why do I still get stuck with the bill if I decide I'm not ready for parenthood and leave her, and move on with my life? The dudes still get dragged through the mud in the legal system when they don't want to be a parent, being forced to pay child support, having their payments garnished all because the lady wants to be a mother. But when the would-be mother decides she isn't responsible enough or 'ready' to be a mother, she can scoop her little problem away without guilt or shame from her peers.

Strangely, nobody ever wants to address this point. It is no more of an issue now than it was before: men have no agency regarding the offspring, once conceived. (All the more reason for men to take personal responsibility regarding the single act that leads to procreation.)

 

[Cameramonkey]

Billie Jo Armstrong (Green Day lead singer) Announced he is renouncing his citizenship over this and moving to the UK.

The UK has some pretty strong abortion rules. Stronger than some states here in the US.

 

[Cameramonkey]

So I consider myself Pro Life. But also small government. So I have no strong feelz either way as far as legislation goes.

Am I crazy for thinking the statehouse should avoid tackling this in the special session and wait until next session to carefully debate and craft solid legislation (or not) rather than rushing something through just to tackle it in a rush?

 

[Ark]

So I consider myself Pro Life. But also small government. So I have no strong feelz either way as far as legislation goes.

Am I crazy for thinking the statehouse should avoid tackling this in the special session and wait until next session to carefully debate and craft solid legislation (or not) rather than rushing something through just to tackle it in a rush?

I was just discussing this point with someone yesterday. I don't think the legislature should rush a special session on this, particularly as we simply have more important emergencies to deal with. Let it slide to after the midterms and talk about it in the next full session. I know the super pro life people think it's a raging emergency but, frankly, it's not. Status quo can go on another six months.

 

[oze]

Billie Jo Armstrong (Green Day lead singer) Announced he is renouncing his citizenship over this and moving to the UK.

The UK has some pretty strong abortion rules. Stronger than some states here in the US.

Buh-bye.