Plan B Forum

Big RR wrote: ↑

Sat Jun 25, 2022 12:34 am

I'm 100% pro-abortion, but it's just not that important to me.

That's like being 100% for free speech but saying it's really not important. Sure.

So you're 100% for saying you're pro abortion, but you don't give a damn what they do. BFD.

It's just not high on my priority list.

I wonder how long it will be before some red states start trying to pass laws to prevent women of child-bearing age from exiting the state without a negative pregnancy test?

The fact that the Supreme Court has declared that the government can overrule a medical procedure agreed upon by a woman and her doctor should be a serious concern to everyone.

Absolutely.

Look on the bright side; this is your opportunity for a great liberal crusade or war. Work towards a pro-choice constitutional amendment. Declare the red states your political enemies. Call for Antifa volunteers to enter these states and commit arson, destruction, and riots. Boycott these states, hurt them economically. Encourage retired liberals, and there must be millions, to move to a targeted state to vote and elect liberal politicians. If most Americans are with you; you should be able to defeat most pro-life states

I hope you don't spend too much time thinking before posting the above type of comment. That would at least give you an excuse to say that you posted quickly and didn't give much thought to what you wrote.

Have I told you your system is fucked recently?

I was impressed by Scooter's quote above "If it was about babies. . . " As in so many things in America, it seems to start with money. When the draft was first leaked, I heard on NPR a discussion of the history of Abortion in America. For the early years, it was like most medical procedures, with no governmental regulation. Birthing was strictly a female process, aided by Midwifes and included abortion. Men were just not part of it. Then a trade union, men only, was formed for physicians. They called themselves the American Medical Association. One of their early leaders began a lobbying effort to outlaw their competition, Midwifes. Given their general ignorance of female functioning [Good God! It is during my adult lifetime that they have 'discovered' heart attacks in women are different than those in men.] abortions were much more dangerous than when they were only the purview of midwives. Simple fix--don't do abortions at all.

snailgate

I am opposed in principle to homicide - taking the life of a member of the species homo sapiens
But I recognize, as does the law, that what may appear to be unlawful murder, may in fact be justified by certain circumstances - self-defence, saving the lives of others and so on.
Therefore I support laws that seek to differentiate between causes and results

I am opposed in principle to abortion. I believe it is the taking of the life of a member of the species homo sapiens.
But I am uncomfortable with a general and overall one-size-fits-all law against abortion. I recognize, as do some laws, that abortion may in fact be justified by certain circumstances.
I believe those circumstances to be:
1. in the case of rape
2. in the case of incest
3. in the case where the mother's life will be lost if the child is carried to term. This is a medical and physical loss of actual life - not 'lifestyle', 'circumstances' or 'being miserable' etc

I believe in a woman's right to choose. Choosing to have intercourse with a known risk of conception is a choice. Women are big enough and brave enough to live with the consequences of their choices.

If anyone wants to argue an equivalency with choosing to smoke tobacco and then seeking medical treatment for lung disease, we can discuss the many laws designed to restrict choice in the matter of smoking and argue whether one kind of restriction of choice is different to another.

I believe education must be emphasized; that contraception must be available to women (and men) of the age of consent(*); that child welfare programs must be extended and so on.

I believe that the lives of "many millions" of women are neither going to be affected nor ruined by the Supreme Court decision. By the far the majority of women get through life without an abortion and many are able to avoid pregnancy by the proper use of contraception (granted the occasional failure of some methods).

Throughout history, not having sexual intercourse is guaranteed to avoid an unwanted pregnancy (bar one but you know . . .)

Yes and women ALWAYS have the choice not to have a penis inserted in their vagina.

BoSoxGal wrote: ↑

Sat Jun 25, 2022 4:21 pm

Yes and women ALWAYS have the choice not to have a penis inserted in their vagina.

No, I don't think that's accurate. What an odd thing to say (though I imagine that the vast majority of women have that choice, always). That is why there should, it seems to me, to be special circumstances of rape and incest allowed in any regulation of abortion.

MajGenl.Meade wrote: ↑

Sat Jun 25, 2022 4:26 pm

BoSoxGal wrote: ↑

Sat Jun 25, 2022 4:21 pm

Yes and women ALWAYS have the choice not to have a penis inserted in their vagina.

No, I don't think that's accurate. What an odd thing to say (though I imagine that the vast majority of women have that choice, always). That is why there should, it seems to me, to be special circumstances of rape and incest allowed in any regulation of abortion.

So the hundreds of millions of women worldwide- probably more, actually- who are regularly coerced into sexual intercourse by partners are just SOL.

Genl, I wish you would expand on your understanding of the problem and why your default is against abortion.

1 What do you mean by abortion?

2. Does the presence of an IUD within a uterus indicate intent to commit homicide?

3. Is a fertile egg joined with a sperm a legal person at that point in time? If not, just when does this mass of growing cells in a uterus or fallopian tube come a person?

Do you know about the medical condition within a human uterus called "human chimera"? If a child survives this condition, should it be charged with killing a human or perhaps cannabalism?

Thank you, snailgate

BoSoxGal wrote: ↑

Sat Jun 25, 2022 5:15 pm

So the hundreds of millions of women worldwide- probably more, actually- who are regularly coerced into sexual intercourse by partners are just SOL.

This Supreme Court decision is applicable to the USA. It is not "worldwide" and I don't care to be sidetracked into discussing US Foreign Aid policy.

Is there data on how many women in the USA are regularly coerced into sexual intercourse by partners? How many become pregnant? How many of those have abortions?

I posted a not-unreasonable message indicating exceptions that should (I believe) inform state laws, rather than outright bans on all abortions. I don't see how "I didn't want to do it" could really fit into that.

It's a difficult question with which few people are totally comfortable. Those who support abortion rights are themselves divided on issues such as the grounds for abortion and the time beyond which abortion should not be allowed.

You are so full of shit Meade that you don’t even know what you don’t know - even though the facts are readily available you are just so convinced of your superior intellect and knowledge of the world and the experiences of women that you can’t be bothered with facts. You are so painfully boring, among other negative qualities like the loathsome LGBTQIA bigotry.

You should find someplace to evangelize next that doesn’t have internet access.

BoSoxGal wrote: ↑

Sat Jun 25, 2022 4:21 pm

Yes and women ALWAYS have the choice not to have a penis inserted in their vagina.

Can't imagine that you'll ever need to worry about having to make that decision... for one reason or another.

-"BB"-

BoSoxGal wrote: ↑

Sat Jun 25, 2022 8:06 pm

You are so full of shit Meade that you don’t even know what you don’t know - even though the facts are readily available you are just so convinced of your superior intellect and knowledge of the world and the experiences of women that you can’t be bothered with facts. You are so painfully boring, among other negative qualities like the loathsome LGBTQIA bigotry.

You should find someplace to evangelize next that doesn’t have internet access.

That's not a constructive response to my expression of difficulty with the abortion issue. Surely you are not opposed to abortion in cases of incest and rape. Likewise, you are for abortion when the mother's life is in danger. I also believe those to be valid exceptions to any law restricting abortion rights. Do you propose that "I didn't want to do it" is also such an exception and how would that be determined in law? (I don't know - but there are lawyers here who are able to respond coherently).

I am also struggling with the experience of my wife and myself. One the one hand, there is a sense that abortion is a valid option when the child's life expectancy would be about zero (due to genetic factors) - and then the concern that this could be misused in some form of genetic selection (such as male vs female).

You may feel that my opinion is of no relevance. However, I am a voter and I understand my vote matters. So that must mean my opinion matters as that guides my vote.

That was unnecessary, BB. A mere cheap shot. Don't sink to that level (or rise, if that's the case).

I had to look up "Poutine" because I'd never heard of it. Its definition makes it seem like it would look like an aborted potato.

What a bunch of bullshit