Alabama R's tried to make all abortion a felony to force a SCOTUS decision

[Mormolyce]

One of their favourite little misdirections, that I'll point out pre-emptively, is this late-term abortion stuff, particularly with regards to Canada. Canada has no laws regarding abortion. Literally, none, other than the same medical-ethics stuff that covers the entire medical field. By law, a doctor can pursue an abortion whenever he and the patient want it.

This is where the misdirection occurs, because the lack of any law does not mean there's a lack of ethical medical practice. Doctors won't abort a healthy late-term baby in the vast majority of circumstances; they'll induce a birth or extract the fetus through caesarean. That's the safest practice, at that point, in the vast majority of cases, for both mother and fetus. A late-term abortion only occurs when it's medically warranted, and those circumstances are rare.

But they like to pretend that because we don't have a law banning it, relying on doctors to have better understanding of medical ethics and practice than politicians (crazy notion, right?), that Canada must therefore be aborting all kinds of late-term pregnancies willy-nilly because WOO ABORTIONS R COOOOL!

It's obviously bullshit. Because they don't care about the facts. They care about pushing a completely horseshit perspective of the world based upon lies and fearmongering, to scare otherwise decent people into accidentally supporting a regressive limitation on women's basic human rights, for an at least implicitly religious motivation (though often, overtly as hell).

It's almost like a doctor and the mother are better placed to make that decision than some rich asshole in Washington who panders to religious nuts but secretly pressured his mistress to get an abortion.

[JohnBrown1917]

That we're very divided. This would seem to be the natural result of Democracy. And for all my conservatism, sometimes I do honestly think that we, as conservatives, go a bit too far in one direction. A good a direction, but too far. And we have the Democratic Party to help reign us in. And sometimes the Democratic party goes way too far in what they believe in. A direction that is beneficial, but too far, and conservatives are there to hold the breach. To keep things from going too far. Not all issues are like this, but many of them are.

But in this issue it seems we just have two extremes vying for dominance.

Pro-choice are in the overwhelming majority in democratic and secular countries.

[D Luniz]

There are at least two reasons:
1. If you actually think abortion is murder, then making exemptions for rape and incest make no sense. You can't murder a baby just because their father raped their mother.
2. As far as I'm aware, there is nothing genuine about these laws in the slightest, and they're only passing them for the sole purpose of getting to the Supreme Court. So they have to be as inflammatory as possible to get as strong a legal reaction as they can.

call a spade a spade and state the third reason

they dont believe women can be raped

[KOUNTERPARTS]

Prove that I don't.

the above was preceded by:

It's pretty sexist to assume abortion being available is in a womans interest. I think abortions should be banned.

pick one , and stop shit-posting

[Felya]

That we're very divided.

No, we are not divided. This isn’t something you can blame on division. I even asked you a logistics question of how police would capture these aborting women, but you refused to answer it.

This would seem to be the natural result of Democracy. And for all my conservatism, sometimes I do honestly think that we, as conservatives, go a bit too far in one direction. A good a direction, but too far. And we have the Democratic Party to help reign us in. And sometimes the Democratic party goes way too far in what they believe in. A direction that is beneficial, but too far, and conservatives are there to hold the breach. To keep things from going too far. Not all issues are like this, but many of them are.

Other times, people use division to skirt their unpopular opinion.

But in this issue it seems we just have two extremes vying for dominance.

Bullshit... I already asked a basic question to show which side is extreme and you are refusing to answer it. How do police go about finding these women? Would you call police on a woman that suddenly wasn’t pregnant? Once your argument gets grounded, it’s very clear that only one opinion is extreme... not some side.

You know what else is part of ‘right wing’? MRA... men’s rights... How can the same ideology be complaining that they have no say in a woman choosing to abort, to now support the government replacing the woman in taking the man’s choice away?

Only one side of this argument is extreme, which is blatantly obvious when grandiose statements about politicians, are grounded in logistics of how this side would enforce their law. If you don’t think investigation of women who have a miscarriage is extreme, than you might be way more than just extreme.

I’d also like to point out out, you are not saying what is actually extreme. It should be obvious why you can’t say what’s extreme, but shift into generalities of political parties.

Edit: Look at the bright side, ladies. Since MRA keeps complaining about women entrapping man with getting pregnant. You can now blame the government! You no longer have to find excuses to not agree with the man’s opinion to abort. You can now blame the government! Thank you government for making it easier to entrap men!

I am wondering where all the MRA dudes went... this thread is so on point for them. The government is taking away a right, MRA bitched they wanted to share with women. It’s a lot more difficult to convince government, than your gf.

[Felya]

How on God's green Earth is that sexist? You've said some dumbass shit in the past, but this might just take the cake.

It’s the closest we got to MRA opinion on this issue, which is very disappointing. Here we have an issue women and MRA can agree on, since men didn’t have a say in abortion and now neither do women. Approaching this issue from a perspective of a man, who demanded the right to influence the abortion of his brood, is very interesting. It’s far more interesting, to consider their silence on this issue.

[infinitemeridian]

No, I fucking did not.

It's framed in different language in different nations. Bodily integrity, or the various sub-partitions of the right, like right to life, liberty, security of person, right to no cruel and unusual punishment, banning of slavery, etc.

I assume you are referring to culture here? Can you provide one single legal definition of body autonomy? Because even a cursory google search provides almost nothing except a wiki article with no source for the definition and a bunch of opinion pieces.

If bodily autonomy is such a universal right and so clear-cut, shouldn't that be framed some place in objective language? Otherwise, why should I believe your definition of bodily autonomy referring only to the physical body? And even under your definition, why are we pushing for mandatory vaccinations? Doesn't that violate this basic human right?

[Benggaul]

Sometimes i wonder why would young women even want to live in those states, just make your life in another woman friendly state and let those religious white male republicans live with each other.

Because moving is expensive, time-consuming and most likely not an option for a great deal of the population. Leaving behind friends, family and lives because the lawmakers in the state seem hell-bent on criminalizing you may sound like an easy decision to make, but I can totally understand why it's not feasible for the majority.

Also, it's much better for them to stay, gather, coordinate and vote those fuckers out come the next election. Moving from those States only ensures that they'll stay backwards and unchecked. Teach them a lesson and turn them blue. The GOP are a dying minority and they are grabbing with both hands onto as much power as they can to stay on top. These new bills/laws are a part of that. Trump flooding the SCOTUS and lower courts with GOP shills is part of that. Again, they WANT these laws to be challenged in court so that the now GOP-leaning SCOTUS will have to rule on it. They want Roe v. Wade overturned and it's NOT because they are "Pro-Life". They are Pro-Control.

- - - Updated - - -

I'll be honest, I haven't been able to take you seriously since you ran away from the forum when the Mueller Report

I'm surprised you even took him seriously then. I've had him and most of the rest of the bad-faith posters on ignore since it first became obvious they a) have no idea what they're talking about and b) just consistently try to derail threads with warped definitions or flat-out lies.

[Mayhem]

That we're very divided. This would seem to be the natural result of Democracy. And for all my conservatism, sometimes I do honestly think that we, as conservatives, go a bit too far in one direction. A good a direction, but too far. And we have the Democratic Party to help reign us in. And sometimes the Democratic party goes way too far in what they believe in. A direction that is beneficial, but too far, and conservatives are there to hold the breach. To keep things from going too far. Not all issues are like this, but many of them are.

But in this issue it seems we just have two extremes vying for dominance.

Nope, that's not what it tells the rest of the world. Try again?

[Endus]

I assume you are referring to culture here?

Clearly I am not. I am referring to legal definitions.

Can you provide one single legal definition of body autonomy? Because even a cursory google search provides almost nothing except a wiki article with no source for the definition and a bunch of opinion pieces.

Because you're not paying attention. You were already shown that it's presented in different language in other jurisdictions, or split into separate subordinate factors. "Security of the person" is a common usage.

If bodily autonomy is such a universal right and so clear-cut, shouldn't that be framed some place in objective language?

It is. It's in the UDHR, as "security of the person". As well as international treaties on human rights, based on the UDHR, before you claim the latter's not binding.

Otherwise, why should I believe your definition of bodily autonomy referring only to the physical body? And even under your definition, why are we pushing for mandatory vaccinations? Doesn't that violate this basic human right?

Nobody's pushing for forced vaccinations, really. We're pushing for serious, significant consequences for willful refusal to vaccinate, and parents denying vaccination to their children to be treated as the child abuse that it is.

So no; you are again dishonestly shifting things around.

[unfilteredJW]

Which of the right wing YouTube cunts posted the antivaccine comparison with regards to the body autonomy “debate”? I’ve seen these threads pop up for years and now this shit is falling out of almost all these depos mouths.

[Eveningforest]

Which of the right wing YouTube cunts posted the antivaccine comparison with regards to the body autonomy “debate”? I’ve seen these threads pop up for years and now this shit is falling out of almost all these depos mouths.

What?? What are they arguing? Mandatory vaccinations breach bodily autonomy in the same sense forced pregnancy does? What a stupid ass comparison.
Can't figure out from what you said if they are anti-abortion or anti-vaxxers. Sure as hell not going to look these videos up.

[Draco-Onis]

Can't figure out from what you said if they are anti-abortion or anti-vaxxers. Sure as hell not going to look these videos up.

They can be both like their dear leader Trump plenty of stupid to go around.

[infinitemeridian]

What?? What are they arguing? Mandatory vaccinations breach bodily autonomy in the same sense forced pregnancy does? What a stupid ass comparison.
Can't figure out from what you said if they are anti-abortion or anti-vaxxers. Sure as hell not going to look these videos up.

How does mandatory vaccinations not breach bodily autonomy?

- - - Updated - - -

Clearly I am not. I am referring to legal definitions.



Because you're not paying attention. You were already shown that it's presented in different language in other jurisdictions, or split into separate subordinate factors. "Security of the person" is a common usage.



It is. It's in the UDHR, as "security of the person". As well as international treaties on human rights, based on the UDHR, before you claim the latter's not binding.



Nobody's pushing for forced vaccinations, really. We're pushing for serious, significant consequences for willful refusal to vaccinate, and parents denying vaccination to their children to be treated as the child abuse that it is.

So no; you are again dishonestly shifting things around.

Ok gotcha - the wording on the official site is incredibly short and vague - "person" could refer to your body, it could refer to actions, it could refer to many things.

https://www.un.org/en/universal-decl...-human-rights/

I guess the key word here is "security" - forcing you to feed a child doesn't breech security in my mind. The other factor is you entered a legal agreement to feed said child to begin with.

[Eveningforest]

How does mandatory vaccinations not breach bodily autonomy?
- - - Updated - - -

Firstly, we don't even have mandatory vaccinations in the United States. I have met a few parents who don't vaccinate their kids. There is required paperwork they have to fill out for the school district and then the idiots are off the hook.

Secondly, I was pointing to the idiocy of comparing vaccinations to pregnancy. Let me re-iterate that I haven't even heard the full argument but comparing those two is asinine. Sounds like a bunch of immature internet trolls who know absolutely nothing about reproduction and female biology think their uneducated opinions are valid. The joy of freaking Youtube.

[Wilfire]

Why do people pander to these right-wing nutjobs and let them come into office in the first place? Every time right-wing nutjobs get power they cause untold ruin and damage. Just ban right-wing politics and end this nonsense.

[Gestopft]

I'm really torn as to whether or not the potential overturning of Roe v. Wade would be good, or terrible for Democrats. On one hand, a victory for the pro-life side could drive down the urgency among some GoP faithful (or even result in pro-life voters voting on other issues where Dems may be favored) and cause a backlash favoring the Democrats, but on the other hand, I don't think Democrats win a general election on social/cultural issues. Democrats have Republicans beaten in popularity on most of the economic policy- it's messaging, identity, and social issues that turn out voters for the GoP.

Yeah, nice job to all the bernie bros out there.

https://twitter.com/pelosiforsf/stat...645888?lang=en

Good shit.

Fun fact: Bernie's supporters were more loyal to Clinton than Clinton's supporters (in 2008) were to Obama, and besides, some crossover between parties is just normal voter behavior. But have fun with anecdotes.

[SirBeef]

Frankly, the SCOTUS should refuse to hear these cases since the legislation was created in bad faith just to get there. Also, anyone in these states should should get out and vote these fuckeers out.

- - - Updated - - -

Because you shouldn't be allowed to just kill it when you don't like the outcome of your actions. You should just refrain from having sex if your response is to kill the result of it. That doesn't mean I don't care about women.

So is it okay to kill insects becasue you placed some shrubs around you home and they get in?

- - - Updated - - -

Overpopulation is a real issue facing future generations, yet we want to keep shoveling babies out in the world damn to the mother if she wants it or not (or is even capable of caring for the baby).
Oh and as an added bonus we refuse to do anything except destroy the world so that when these babies we forced to be born are adults they can enjoy a dying planet.

Go republicans!

If the GOP and it's supportes are unwilling to fund pre and post natal care and expand medicaid and other social safety nets when they decide to ban abortions, then every supporter and legislator needs to offer to adopt or support those unwanted kids that happen as a result of thier actions. Period. They legislate absitinance, which is absolutely not natural, not rational or reasonable. They refuse to teach proper sex ed in schools. They refuse to fund or allow proper pre/post natal care, i.e. Planned Parenthood and other similar clinics. These are just people wanting to enact thier own Christan version of Shria Law but the are too afraid to actually admitt it.

[Draco-Onis]

Frankly, the SCOTUS should refuse to hear these cases since the legislation was created in bad faith just to get there. Also, anyone in these states should should get out and vote these fuckeers out.

Very good chance they will hear it even more chance that Ginsburg will not make it and Trump gets another seat guaranteeing this will get rubber stamped by the already right wing extremist court.

[Ghostpanther]

Very good chance they will hear it even more chance that Ginsburg will not make it and Trump gets another seat guaranteeing this will get rubber stamped by the already right wing extremist court.

I do not consider Roberts a conservative. A moderate who already has made decisions in favor of the liberal justices. Hell, recently Kavanaugh sided with the liberals in a 5-4 decision about a case against Apple. And Ginsberg may sleep her way on the court until she is in her mid 90's.