Abortion discussions - latest court cases

[once_upon]

Or perhaps I have the answer.

It's obvious from that flippant remark you did not read the gut wrenching post of the mother whose life was endangered. She lives in Texas where their current laws make it a crime to save the mother's life.

 

[AxelAnnie]

I think you are missing the fact that it has no consequences for the man.

Well, duh. Of course, there are not the same consequences for men. What that has to do with abortion I have no clue. The burden is not equal..............unless men get a uterus and can carry a child. The man has no say if a woman wants to have an abortion (btw...I don't think that is exactly "fair". ) On the other side of the coin, if the man wants the baby (let's say he has cancer and can have no more children...he has no say in what the woman does with his child. That doesn't seem "fair" to me.

And, if the woman decides to have the child, she can sue (and be granted) child support from him. How is that fair? Clue. It is not.
There is absolutely no reason why pregnancy should be carved out for special circumstances. It is not. Pregnancy (with the exception of rape, and the health of the mother) is an activity that two parties chose to engage in. And, there are consequences to that choice.

Is there a group of people that do not know that sec can lead to pregnancy? If you are going to have sex, then it is incumbent upon you to accept the risk.

If someone explain to me why abortion should have an exception regarding accepting the consequences of your choice, please let me know.

 

[Lemonade20]

Or perhaps I have the answer.

Please just stop.

 

[Aussie Willy]

Or perhaps I have the answer.

What is the answer? This comment shows a total lack of empathy to that woman's situation. That is why everyone is at the point where they do not care about what you think and your opinion. Your opinion is totally judgemental and certain not practical. And places the responsibility for pregnancy squarely at women. Not men. Just women.

 

[jeffisjeff]

Please just stop.

I have an idea - you all can stop responding to AA. There doesn't seem to be much of it point anyway...

 

[quartz]

I’ve been sexually active since 1978 and never once have I had sex with the sole intention of getting pregnant. I looked after birth control for the first ten years of my and husbands relationship, after that, I told him it was his responsibility.

 

[Andora]

I have an idea - you all can stop responding to AA. There doesn't seem to be much of it point anyway...

Thiiiiiis!

Especially after @once_upon 's post reminding us AA has HELPED FACILITATE ABORTIONS. This blistering hypocrite has nothing of value to contribute here, and doesn't deserve the attention. She's just a perpetual aggravation factory, and there's got to be better conversation to be had if folks stop feeding the troglodyte.

 

[MacMadame]

you all can stop responding to AA.

Who?

 

[Sparks]

https://twitter.com/fred_guttenberg/status/1524381176689012736

Very true

 

[Spikefan]

Who?

Exactly.

 

[Asli]

I have an idea - you all can stop responding to AA. There doesn't seem to be much of it point anyway...

IMO it's a good exercise to have to reply to someone with an infuriating (to us) point of view and not always remain among like-minded friends.

The experience helps if ever you're the odd one out.

 

[misskarne]

The only consequence sex should have, as long as it’s done between two consenting adults, is an orgasm.

Well, two orgasms, ideally.

 

[Coco]

At a minimum!

 

[Japanfan]

Of course, it works. How could it not? That is just silly. The problem is that people want what they want when they want it, and think there should be no consequences attached to their decision.

It doesn't work because people can't be abstinent. And there are many women who might like to be abstinent but can't be because their husbands won't agree to it. Women in the developing world who already have kids they can't afford to feed.

 

[Japanfan]

Well, duh. Of course, there are not the same consequences for men. What that has to do with abortion I have no clue. The burden is not equal..............unless men get a uterus and can carry a child. The man has no say if a woman wants to have an abortion (btw...I don't think that is exactly "fair". ) On the other side of the coin, if the man wants the baby (let's say he has cancer and can have no more children...he has no say in what the woman does with his child. That doesn't seem "fair" to me.

And, if the woman decides to have the child, she can sue (and be granted) child support from him. How is that fair? Clue. It is not.

AA, I'm sure that you understand that the issue here pertains to 'bodily autonomy'. Since only women carry children, only they get to choose whether or not to have abortions.

But you also need to consider that some women have abortions because the father of their child-to-be doesn't want a child. Not because the women want an abortion. In some parts of the world, women are still forced by society/family to have abortions simply because they are having a girl.

And seriously, you question the fairness of why men have to pay child support?

It's because the men are fathers, duh. And have a responsibility for the welfare of their children.

Men too have bodily autonomy. They can keep their zipper up or only have sex in circumstances where a pregnancy won't happen.

But who ever thinks in terms of controlling men's bodies?

 

[Andora]

IMO it's a good exercise to have to reply to someone with an infuriating (to us) point of view and not always remain among like-minded friends.

The experience helps if ever you're the odd one out.

I generally do agree with this.

In the case of this poster on this topic, I find they're too much a constant repeat offender. Which then invokes repeat indignant reactions from many others, and the thread keeps devolving down to the same posters screaming at AA's most recent ridiculous post. (A trap I have fallen into myself enough times)

I just find her schtick tired, that & the control it winds up having over certain political threads.

 

[Aussie Willy]

I generally do agree with this.

In the case of this poster on this topic, I find they're too much a constant repeat offender. Which then invokes repeat indignant reactions from many others, and the thread keeps devolving down to the same posters screaming at AA's most recent ridiculous post. (A trap I have fallen into myself enough times)

I just find her schtick tired, that & the control it winds up having over certain political threads.

Most of the time it is about keeping someone to account for the hypocritical things they say when they are lecturing to us how we should behave because they are moralising about some of us directly.

I don't know about anyone else but I have had personal messages from this person asking me to be nice to them when they are imposing their moral values on myself.

 

[Japanfan]

Most of the time it is about keeping someone to account for the hypocritical things they say when they are lecturing to us how we should behave because they are moralising about some of us directly.

Also, there are new members here all the time. Some of them might benefit from reading this thread.

 

[MacMadame]

Most of the time it is about keeping someone to account for the hypocritical things they say when they are lecturing to us how we should behave because they are moralising about some of us directly.

Why do you think that someone you will never meet and is just words on the screen can be held to account about anything?

I think correcting misinformation or using what a repetitive poster (of which we have a few) says as a starting point for a point you want to make is productive. But yelling at posters that they are horrible or hypocritical accomplishes nothing, IMO.

 

[MacMadame]

A nuanced anti-choice advocate:

Antiabortion advocate worked for years to overturn Roe, but worries over next steps
https://wapo.st/37GwsV7 (gifted)

 

[Yazmeen]

I have an idea - you all can stop responding to AA. There doesn't seem to be much of it point anyway...

If you haven't figured it out by now, AA and a couple others here frankly get...well, I'll be polite...serious pleasure on presenting their all-knowing/all-powerful truly terrific and absolutely true opinions all the time, reveling in upsetting people.

Also known as being a crashing BORE. Might I suggest doing what I do? Skim their posts and pass if the post is yet another self-righteous, self-congratulatory sermon. Yawn...

 

[Spikefan]

A nuanced anti-choice advocate:

Antiabortion advocate worked for years to overturn Roe, but worries over next steps
https://wapo.st/37GwsV7 (gifted)

Great article, good to see she is beginning to recognize the grift.

 

[Tesla]

I asked my husband if he has bodily autonomy. He said no and got into genetic predispositions. I said every man should have a reversible vasectomy. He said every woman should have her tubes tied if research gets to it being reversible (or something? Safer?). I’d rather have a dog.

rant I am so done with men. If I ever get divorced, I never want to get married again. My husband is worse than a toddler.

 

[once_upon]

Tubal require a surgical procedure in an outpatient setting at the very least. Reversals have been attempted but haven't been very successful-unlike vasectomy.

 

[quartz]

A vasectomy is 20 minutes in the doctors office and a bag of frozen peas on a dude’s nuts while laying on the couch for the weekend. Not even comparable with a woman getting her tubes tied.

 

[MacMadame]

He said no and got into genetic predispositions.

What do genetic predispositions have to do with bodily autonomy?

 

[Tesla]

@once_upon and @quartz I know! I was so infuriated.

 

[Sparks]

Tubal require a surgical procedure in an outpatient setting at the very least. Reversals have been attempted but haven't been very successful-unlike vasectomy.

Maybe. I have a relative who had a tubal reversal and had a child at 39.
A vasectomy and a reversal are much easier and safe

 

[Tesla]

What do genetic predispositions have to do with bodily autonomy?

Right? His example was that some people can't prevent obesity. I just can’t. And again with the deflection for every man getting a vasectomy to every woman should get her tubes tied.

 

[MacMadame]

His example was that some people can't prevent obesity.

But having bodily autonomy isn't the same thing as being able to control everything about your body. It means the choice of what to do with your body is yours. So, in the case of obesity, having bodily autonomy means you get to decide if you are going to diet and how. Not having bodily autonomy means someone else decides and you have no choice.