Abortion discussions - latest court cases

ballettmaus

Well-Known Member
Messages
16,807
A decent minimum wage might be a starting point. But the pro-lifers wouldn't want that. In fact pro-lifers actively fight against everything that would make women's lives easier so maybe abortion wouldn't be the only option because they couldn't afford to have a child in first place.
We were talking to our neighbor about the Texas law the other day and he said that studies have shown that women who have children are less likely to seek career positions or go into politics. Making safe abortions illegal is most certainly not about the child for those who make those laws.
 

DORISPULASKI

Watching submarine races
Messages
12,735
  • In the day, in CT just after contraception was legal post 1965, I knew at least four couples where the guy got a vasectomy because they did not want any more kids. Also, women who had their fallopian tubes tied during surgery of other types. Quite a few doctors would not tie the tubes of a younger woman because they thought she did not know her own mind or because they thought the husband might want more kids. So there were were several reasons the men got the vasectomy:
  • The wife would not have sex without it
  • Vasectomy was cheaper than abdominal surgery
  • The doctor never refused to operate on the men
  • And later on, there was a reversible vasectomy
  • There are apt to be more complications and pain with tubal ligation than vasectomy
So if you know any Texas men, remind them that a vote against abortion may be a vote for vasectomy for them some time down the road.

Info on sterilization in CT
 
Last edited:

Dobre

Well-Known Member
Messages
11,089

Statement from Attorney General Merrick B. Garland Regarding Texas SB8​


The U.S. Department of Justice today issued the following statement from Attorney General Merrick B. Garland regarding Texas SB8:

“While the Justice Department urgently explores all options to challenge Texas SB8 in order to protect the constitutional rights of women and other persons, including access to an abortion, we will continue to protect those seeking to obtain or provide reproductive health services pursuant to our criminal and civil enforcement of the FACE Act, 18 U.S.C. § 248.

“The FACE Act prohibits the use or threat of force and physical obstruction that injures, intimidates, or interferes with a person seeking to obtain or provide reproductive health services. It also prohibits intentional property damage of a facility providing reproductive health services. The department has consistently obtained criminal and civil remedies for violations of the FACE Act since it was signed into law in 1994, and it will continue to do so now.

“The department will provide support from federal law enforcement when an abortion clinic or reproductive health center is under attack. We have reached out to U.S. Attorneys’ Offices and FBI field offices in Texas and across the country to discuss our enforcement authorities.

“We will not tolerate violence against those seeking to obtain or provide reproductive health services, physical obstruction or property damage in violation of the FACE Act.”
 

AxelAnnie

Like a small boat on the ocean...
Messages
13,562
Saw these on FB this morning.
Bumper sticker: "Vasectomy Prevents Abortion"

Also: "If men could get pregnant, abortions would be available at Jiffy Lube".
No $hit Sherlock. And if men had to get their balls squished we would have way different mammogram machines.
 

MacMadame

Staying at home
Messages
43,019
Catholic doesn't automatically mean anti-abortion.
Even in the 70's, there was "Catholics for Choice". Note that they don't support abortion per se. They just say it's a woman's decision. And they support other things like contraception and reproductive healthcare that make abortion less likely.

 

caseyedwards

Well-Known Member
Messages
16,794
The pope is pro choice. John Paul II is not pope anymore! Pope Francis has extremely liberal views on abortion. He continues to say it’s a sin only to prevent rebellion. Same thing with gay marriage. He is very liberal on all issues. So that’s why catholic countries are no longer so strict. Because at this moment and with very little pushback the pope is moving the Catholic Church to become pro choice and pro gay marriage
 
Last edited:

AxelAnnie

Like a small boat on the ocean...
Messages
13,562
The pope is pro choice. John Paul II is not pope anymore! Pope Francis has extremely liberal views on abortion. He continues to say it’s a sin only to prevent rebellion. Same thing with gay marriage. He is very liberal on all issues. So that’s why catholic countries are no longer so strict. Because at this moment and with very little pushback the pope is moving the Catholic Church to become pro choice and pro gay marriage
WOAH - that is an overstatement.
The Pope being liberal has to be measured on the Vatican Scale of Liberal. Vatican and Pope liberal are not the same as say.......Biden being liberal. Way different. Vatican liberalism is measured in millimeters/year.

LONDON (Thomson Reuters Foundation) - The Vatican said on Monday that priests cannot bless same-sex unions, disappointing LGBT+ Catholics who had hoped that the Church was becoming more open under Pope Francis, who has previously said he could not judge gay people.
 

DORISPULASKI

Watching submarine races
Messages
12,735

🤡 Gov. Abbott 🤡 was asked why he was forcing incest and rape victims to carry rapists' fetuses to term. Abbott says he is going to eliminate all rape :eek: by eliminating all rapists.

This article explains with a straight face and statistics why that is not going to happen.

But stay tuned for either mass lynchings or the legalization of rape in Texas. :cry:
 

Aussie Willy

Hates both vegemite and peanut butter
Messages
24,776
True. I am just surprised. What do you think is the genesis of that?
Maybe people have just become really cynical about a bunch of rich entitled pedophiles or rich excuse makers covering up for pedophiles imposing their morality on the rest of society. When you commit or cover up crimes in your own jurisdiction, you do not have the right to tell others what to do.

BTW - Holy f*cking moly. Has anyone seen Greg Abbott's latest justification for why those who get pregnant as a result of rape or incest should not be allowed to have an abortion after 6 weeks? In summary - let's just eliminate rape!!!


What planet does this f*ckwit live on? It is the same stupid rationale that if a woman doesn't want to get pregnant she should just cross her legs.

ETA - sorry I posted the same time as Dorispulaski.
 

AxelAnnie

Like a small boat on the ocean...
Messages
13,562
Maybe people have just become really cynical about a bunch of rich entitled pedophiles or rich excuse makers covering up for pedophiles imposing their morality on the rest of society. When you commit or cover up crimes in your own jurisdiction, you do not have the right to tell others what to do.

BTW - Holy f*cking moly. Has anyone seen Greg Abbott's latest justification for why those who get pregnant as a result of rape or incest should not be allowed to have an abortion after 6 weeks? In summary - let's just eliminate rape!!!

Well, there are lots of idiots out there.
 

AxelAnnie

Like a small boat on the ocean...
Messages
13,562
So that is why you do not control women's productive rights to protect them from the idiots.
Actually, all our rights are restricted (you can use the word "control" if you want - it does make it seem like someone is being oppressed). Nothing about women's reproductive rights is sacred. Is your position that there should be no restrictions, laws, guidelines? Do you feel the same way about MMR vaccinations? Driver's License requirements. Mandatory school enrollment?

There is truly nothing more "sacred" about woman's reproductive rights than divorce laws, immunizations, driving, and all the other rules and restrictions that we put in place to enable a society to function. If you don't want to procreate (transitive verb. : to beget or bring forth (offspring) : propagate. intransitive verb. : to beget or bring forth offspring : reproduce.) don't have sex. You see, one of the results of sex is children. I know that is shocking.

Another shocker: If you drive on the wrong side of the street on the freeway, it will not turn out well for you.

Sex is a bodily function. Just like deficcating. And I just betcha that if you went around pooping on your neighbor's lawn someone is going to object, and you will get arrested.

If you look at any of the rights guaranteed to us in the Constitution and Bill of rights, you will see that they all have restrictions.

Why should reproductive rights be restriction-free? Honestly, that is a question.

We all need to be responsible for the possible consequences of our actions. Why should that not apply to sex?
 

DORISPULASKI

Watching submarine races
Messages
12,735
Meanwhile Harvard Law professor emeritus Laurence Tribe was on Rachel Maddow' s show. Tribe says the following Supreme Court case, Larkin vs. Grendel' s Den, where Massachussetts delegated to adjacent schools and churches the right to refuse Grendel' s Den' s liquor license,



provides a basis to challenge the Texas abortion law.

Tribe originally was a lawyer on this case. He says the argument was based on a 1925 case where the opinion was delivered by Oliver Wendell Holmes.

Tribe's op-ed in the WaPo describes how the Ku Klux Klan Act can be used to go after bounty hunters.


When Tribe was asked whether he had confidence in Merrick Garland to pursue this case correctly, Tribe revealed that
Merrick Garland had been Tribe's student.
 
Last edited:

Japanfan

Well-Known Member
Messages
24,726
Actually, all our rights are restricted (you can use the word "control" if you want - it does make it seem like someone is being oppressed).
Restricting women's human right to reproductive choice is restrictive.


Nothing about women's reproductive rights is sacred. Is your position that there should be no restrictions, laws, guidelines? Do you feel the same way about MMR vaccinations? Driver's License requirements. Mandatory school enrollment?

There is truly nothing more "sacred" about woman's reproductive rights than divorce laws, immunizations, driving, and all the other rules and restrictions that we put in place to enable a society to function.
Oh geez.

In saying the above, you indicate that it is perfectly okay to police women's bodies - which, by the way, are indeed more sacred than cars or vaccines.

And there are restrictions against women's reproductive rights - abortion only being legal until a certain point in the pregnancy. Or not being legal at all. Think El Salvador.

But there are no restrictions on men's reproductive rights. No punishment for a man who fails to keep it zipped and gets a woman pregnant - then just flies the coup.

If you don't want to procreate (transitive verb. : to beget or bring forth (offspring) : propagate. intransitive verb. : to beget or bring forth offspring : reproduce.) don't have sex. You see, one of the results of sex is children. I know that is shocking.

Another shocker: If you drive on the wrong side of the street on the freeway, it will not turn out well for you.

Sex is a bodily function. Just like deficcating. And I just betcha that if you went around pooping on your neighbor's lawn someone is going to object, and you will get arrested.

If you look at any of the rights guaranteed to us in the Constitution and Bill of rights, you will see that they all have restrictions.

Men's rights to have sex are not restricted.

Why should reproductive rights be restriction-free? Honestly, that is a question.

We all need to be responsible for the possible consequences of our actions. Why should that not apply to sex?

Women are responsible, always have been. Regardless of whether the consequence is bearing a child or aborting it.

Your POV is that women should be punished for it.
 

AxelAnnie

Like a small boat on the ocean...
Messages
13,562
Restricting women's human right to reproductive choice is restrictive.



Oh geez.

In saying the above, you indicate that it is perfectly okay to police women's bodies - which, by the way, are indeed more sacred than cars or vaccines.

And there are restrictions against women's reproductive rights - abortion only being legal until a certain point in the pregnancy. Or not being legal at all. Think El Salvador.

But there are no restrictions on men's reproductive rights. No punishment for a man who fails to keep it zipped and gets a woman pregnant - then just flies the coup.



Men's rights to have sex are not restricted.



Women are responsible, always have been. Regardless of whether the consequence is bearing a child or aborting it.

Your POV is that women should be punished for it.
No one should be punished. Everyone should be responsible. And I would love to have men be responsible. If you can figure that, let me know.

Unfortunately, the baby grows in the woman's body. Fact of life. Be adults and accept the consequences of your actions. Easy concept.
 

ballettmaus

Well-Known Member
Messages
16,807
Another shocker: If you drive on the wrong side of the street on the freeway, it will not turn out well for you.
And that's exactly why it's forbidden. It's a public safety issue. As is abortion, by the way. (Or immunization). As was pointed out repeatedly, there will always be abortion. Making it illegal just means making it unsafe.
Making things legal or illegal is about streamlining certain things where many people are involved so chaos is prevented and/or provide safety.

Sex is a bodily function.
Which one is it? Don't want to reproduce, so don't have sex or bodily function? Can't be both, because the former implies we have absolute control over it and can easily do without, the latter implies it's a natural urge.

Just like deficcating. And I just betcha that if you went around pooping on your neighbor's lawn someone is going to object, and you will get arrested.
How is that comparable to abortion? No one is asking to have an abortion in someone else's backyard. All women are asking for are places to have safe abortions at. Just like we have a private and safe place to go in. (ETA: That, too, is about public safety/health, by the way. If we all went outside, wherever we felt like it, we'd attract rats and rats carry diseases).
 
Last edited:

Japanfan

Well-Known Member
Messages
24,726
No one should be punished. Everyone should be responsible. And I would love to have men be responsible. If you can figure that, let me know.

To give an example, IIRC, men who procured prostitutes in Sweden were punished, as opposed to punishing the prostitutes themselves.


Unfortunately, the baby grows in the woman's body. Fact of life. Be adults and accept the consequences of your actions. Easy concept.

:confused:

Women who choose to have abortions are accepting the consequences of their actions.

Women have always had to accept the consequence of being pregnant. And it really has nothing to do with being an adult, especially when you consider all the pregnant girls - minors - there are in this world.
 

Orm Irian

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,255
We all need to be responsible for the possible consequences of our actions. Why should that not apply to sex?
Funnily enough, having an abortion is one way to respond responsibly to, not the consequences, because having sex is not a moral or behavioural failing that deserves punishment, but one of the potential sequelae of sexual intercourse. It's a lot like taking a course of medication to treat a sexually transmitted infection in that way.

And just for reference, I am actually your ideal concept of a woman who doesn't want children. I'm 45 years old, perimenopausal and blissfully child-free thanks to deciding on a voluntary total misterectomy (and, for the record, also a miss-terectomy) at approximately the age of 14, because that was also when I figured out that I'm pretty much as ace as it's humanly possible to be - which is far more important to my decision-making process than the whole not wanting to reproduce thing, by the way. I've happily lived my entire sex-free, child-free life without a single skerrick of regret on that front and I will continue doing so till the day I die. And I still find your argument reductive, dehumanising and completely out of touch with the lived reality of the majority of women's experiences.

Sex is not solely a reproductive act. It's also a social activity and, for most people, a pleasurable one that they enjoy engaging in for its own sake. It has as many meanings as there are people who do it. Stern black-and-white rules that require anyone with a uterus who happens to enjoy having sex to excise a whole segment of their lives and selves just in case sperm might meet ovum inside their bodies at some point - and judge, damn and condemn both themselves and their potential offspring if they fail to do so - are both cruel and destructive in a similar way to conversion "therapy". Abortion, by contrast, is a form of safe, humane, effective and appropriate medical care, and the fact that it's reactive rather than preventative doesn't make it immoral.
 

AxelAnnie

Like a small boat on the ocean...
Messages
13,562
Funnily enough, having an abortion is one way to respond responsibly to, not the consequences, because having sex is not a moral or behavioural failing that deserves punishment, but one of the potential sequelae of sexual intercourse. It's a lot like taking a course of medication to treat a sexually transmitted infection in that way.

And just for reference, I am actually your ideal concept of a woman who doesn't want children. I'm 45 years old, perimenopausal and blissfully child-free thanks to deciding on a voluntary total misterectomy (and, for the record, also a miss-terectomy) at approximately the age of 14, because that was also when I figured out that I'm pretty much as ace as it's humanly possible to be - which is far more important to my decision-making process than the whole not wanting to reproduce thing, by the way. I've happily lived my entire sex-free, child-free life without a single skerrick of regret on that front and I will continue doing so till the day I die. And I still find your argument reductive, dehumanising and completely out of touch with the lived reality of the majority of women's experiences.

Sex is not solely a reproductive act. It's also a social activity and, for most people, a pleasurable one that they enjoy engaging in for its own sake. It has as many meanings as there are people who do it. Stern black-and-white rules that require anyone with a uterus who happens to enjoy having sex to excise a whole segment of their lives and selves just in case sperm might meet ovum inside their bodies at some point - and judge, damn and condemn both themselves and their potential offspring if they fail to do so - are both cruel and destructive in a similar way to conversion "therapy". Abortion, by contrast, is a form of safe, humane, effective and appropriate medical care, and the fact that it's reactive rather than preventative doesn't make it immoral.
With rights come responsibilities. People have the right to their bodies, but they have the responsibility for their actions.
No one is saying don't enjoy sex. Just be responsible about it. And, no, Abortion is NOT a form, humane, effective and appropriate way to handle your fun and frolic. Your rights stop when they affect others. And, reactive is rather than preventative is everything.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top
Do Not Sell My Personal Information