Sorry Anti-Choicers - SCOTUS is wrong.

[choiceone]

It's easy to be irresponsible when you are young, not sure what your point is here.



Are they , though? All the unhappy cat ladies would say otherwise.

Surveys all over the place have shown that single women without children are either the happiest people in the US or that they're second only to married men. It is married women who come off as the least happy.

So what? It's still a person in the eyes of the law in some circumstances.

It isn't, because, if it were, it would not be necessary to harm the woman to harm the embryo/fetus.

Again, pregnancy is 100% avoidable. Don't have sex if you don't want to risk a baby.

No, it isn't. There are women who have been impregnated while in a coma. You do not have warrant to assume that a woman consented unless she can prove otherwise, because populationally, men are taller, muscularly much stronger, have stronger bones, and have greater cardiopulmonary capacity. That means they are, populationally, more capable of successfully forcing women to have sex/raping them.

We tell people what to do with their bodies all the time. That's why you can't be a hooker, assisted suicide is still illegal, and you can't use hard drugs.

No, you can't sell sex - that's government control of commerce. Assisted suicide is a third party action. Hard drugs can be made illegal as a health hazard. Neither pregnancy nor abortion has to be part of for-profit commerce or a health hazard for the woman. The woman doesn't die of abortion, which is safer for her than late pregnancy/childbirth, but pregnancy isn't illegal. All of your examples are inadequate. They all hinge on claiming that the embryo is of value to the state, when the state has no right to know or find out that the woman is pregnant and no constitutional obligation to the embryo.

Let me know when you get a statistic for America at that time. But if you want to talk about Japan, today, Japan is going through a demographic death spiral because women aren't having babies.

Japan isn't going through a death spiral. A negative birth rate lowers the population. In an overpopulated nation, that is an unequivocal good. The only reason any Japanese are screaming about this is that the government worries about money for social pensions. Everywhere you go in capitalism, the rich do not pay adequately, so ordinary people can't afford ordinary living and retiring. That's the fault of out of control capitalist greed on the part of the rich. The only way women can correct the problem is to refuse to reproduce.

 

[choiceone]

Um, not exactly. Biden Laden and the Arabs all started joining in 1979, and the CIA found them easier to work with than the Afghans. The idea that Jimmy Carter was only arming the "nice" Muslim radicals is a bit silly.

No US president has ever been fully responsible for the CIA, and that is a ridiculous idea. The presidents sponsored counter-terrorism actions and the CIA then chose to carry them out by working with whomever, including terrorists themselves. The Freedom Fighters were not Muslim radicals. And FYI the CIA wasn't originally working with the radicals who would grow into the Taliban - it was the Afghan Freedom Fighters themselves who shared their US weapons with them, not the CIA (which wouldn't have been that naive).

But here's the thing. All those folks were required to learn English at a certain point, and immigration was limited after 1920 to keep us from losing our national ID.

I have nothing against requiring the able to learn English - the 70 year old grannie, not so much. And the problem with immigration limits wasn't with the number limitation - it was defining Asians, etc., as unwanted because the people were under the illusion that being white was related to national identity.

Right. We already have too many criminals, we don't need to import more. This is an issue Trump is still popular on, BTW.

While I agree we shouldn't import more criminals, studies have shown that a greater proportion of the US population is criminal than is the case for immigrants (including undocumented workers).

Well, not really. Someone from Brazil is more likely to be of mixed race, which is why "Latino" and "Hispanic" became categories after the 1970 census.

These are nothing but folk categories.

My wife if Protestant, and many CHinese immigrants are Catholics. They come here because the CCP oppresses Christianity. And they love them some Trump.

Not disagreeing, but many non-Christians also come. The majority of Asian Americans still vote for Democrats.

Um, because we saw millions of people Rush to the Border when Biden told them that he would repeal Trump's draconian rules. Now, true, Biden and Obama did deport a lot of people, but they did little to discourage more from coming. "Catch and release" isn't a strategy. "Catch and I send your ass to a Salvadorean Prison" is definitely going to discourage people, which is why border crossings are at an all time low.

The main problem is that it is also going to encourage the lowest US scum to go on violating the Constitution and have disrespect for the law.

What we don't have statistics on are how many people are self-deporting because they don't want to be caught by ICE.


I think you need to get out to the rest of America, then.

I think you need to get out to the rest of America, too. Harris lost by only 1.5 points and by extremely tiny margins in PA, MI, and WI. All three have Democratic governors, and some fair sized groups in MI have already repented of helping Trump. For me, this all spells a different future word than it does for you. I don't think Trumpers and the GOP will be able keep their power. This country is split right down the middle.

 

[weaver2]

Aborting our progeny is committing cultural suicide.

"we all knew what she was really trying to pull. ...... rubbers have a negative consequence. The sex just isn't as enjoyable........ Abortion isn't responsible, it's a cop out."

Ever consider that your culture might be the problem not abortion?

 

[Gordy327]

Ever consider that your culture might be the problem not abortion?

That or the attitude towards women.

 

[JoeB131]

And there it is............all you need to know about Joe.

If she had told my friend she didn't want to take the pills, he'd have worn a rubber.

This woman was very manipulative, that was the thing. Her manipulations just backfired on her this time.

You would force her to marry the guy and be raped by him whenever he wanted? Even marital rape is illegal now.

Here we go with the rape bullshit again.

Creation is something people do deliberately. If a woman gets pregnant when both people were trying to use contraception responsibly, that isn't creation. It's a mistake.

And being a responsible adult is learning to live with your mistakes. Abortion isn't responsible.

Well, that's a horrible woman. Are you going to hold him partly responsible for choosing to have sex with a liar? Because you sure blame the woman when she picks a bad guy.

Oh, I think they were both horrible people. She was manipulative, he was abusive. My ultimate solution was to "get a better class of friend".

 

[JoeB131]

"we all knew what she was really trying to pull. ...... rubbers have a negative consequence. The sex just isn't as enjoyable........ Abortion isn't responsible, it's a cop out."

Ever consider that your culture might be the problem not abortion?

No, the culture of responsibility and consequences worked just fine for generations.

Now, let's imagine these two idiots lived in a world where she couldn't get an abortion. She'd have thought very hard about not taking her pills. She might have even did the self-evaluation that the relationship was toxic and she needed to get out of it instead of engaging in the Sunk-Cost Falacy. ("I've put this much time and effort, let's put more in").

Now, my late mother had my eldest sister out of wedlock in the days before legal abortion. Do you know what she did? She admitted she made a mistake, straightened out her life, got married, settled down.

Wow. What a cray-cray idea.

 

[JoeB131]

I think you need to get out to the rest of America, too. Harris lost by only 1.5 points and by extremely tiny margins in PA, MI, and WI. All three have Democratic governors, and some fair sized groups in MI have already repented of helping Trump. For me, this all spells a different future word than it does for you. I don't think Trumpers and the GOP will be able keep their power. This country is split right down the middle.

That she lost to Trump at all is the problem here.

And now that they are going to tighten up voter ID requirements and limit mail in ballots, the next election won't be much better, unless Trump tanks the economy.

If the economy goes well, you are going to have 8 years of Vance and welcome to Gilead.

 

[JoeB131]

No, you can't sell sex - that's government control of commerce.

Okay. YOu can't pay to murder your baby. That's government control of commerce.

See how that works?

 

[weaver2]

No, the culture of responsibility and consequences worked just fine for generations.

Now, let's imagine these two idiots lived in a world where she couldn't get an abortion. She'd have thought very hard about not taking her pills. She might have even did the self-evaluation that the relationship was toxic and she needed to get out of it instead of engaging in the Sunk-Cost Falacy. ("I've put this much time and effort, let's put more in").

Now, my late mother had my eldest sister out of wedlock in the days before legal abortion. Do you know what she did? She admitted she made a mistake, straightened out her life, got married, settled down.

Wow. What a cray-cray idea.

Wow!
What's crazy is your world view of what constitutes responsible behavior based on what other conservatives are promoting and a hasty generalization of irresponsibility based on one example. One example is not a good reason to make abortion a mortal sin. And no, responsibility and consequences did not work just fine for generations. The incident of abortion was about the same as today before 1973 when abortion was illegal in almost all states.

 

[Lursa]

Okay. YOu can't pay to murder your baby. That's government control of commerce.

See how that works?

Dobbs said states can allow "murdering" unborn "babies" with no due process. They can pay doctors to do it. So I guess it's not murder, right?

And so all the states' rights folks should be happy that the the law is finally being followed...right?

 

[Lursa]

And being a responsible adult is learning to live with your mistakes. Abortion isn't responsible.

This again? Do you like being proven wrong over and over? It's always just a cut and paste away.

Of course abortion can be a responsible option:​

​

--There's nothing responsible about having a kid you cant afford and expecting tax payers to take up that burden with public assistance.​

​

--There's nothing responsible about having a kid you arent emotionally prepared to have and believe you will abuse or neglect.​

​

--There's nothing responsible about having a kid if you know you wont stop drinking, smoking, doing drugs, etc that will damage the unborn.​

--There's nothing responsible about bringing a child into the world where a domestically violent partner will abuse it and teach it the cycle of violence. The father has parental rights the woman cant supersede.​

​

--There's nothing responsible about remaining pregnant and dropping out of high school or college or missing work and not fulfilling your potential in society.​

​

--There's nothing responsible about remaining pregnant/having a child and not being able to fulfill your other commitments and obligations to family, dependents, employer, church, community, society.​

​

--There's nothing responsible about having a kid and giving it up for adoption when there are already over 100,000 kids in America waiting to be adopted. It means one less that's waiting will find a home.​

If you want to continue to show you have a poor grasp of English vocabulary, you can continue to deny this...but the words do make sense to the properly educated.

 

[Bodi]

We all all ready knew a long time ago.

Which is why I stopped wasting my time...



d

 

[Bodi]

Surveys all over the place have shown that single women without children are either the happiest people in the US or that they're second only to married men. It is married women who come off as the least happy.

It isn't, because, if it were, it would not be necessary to harm the woman to harm the embryo/fetus.

No, it isn't. There are women who have been impregnated while in a coma. You do not have warrant to assume that a woman consented unless she can prove otherwise, because populationally, men are taller, muscularly much stronger, have stronger bones, and have greater cardiopulmonary capacity. That means they are, populationally, more capable of successfully forcing women to have sex/raping them.

No, you can't sell sex - that's government control of commerce. Assisted suicide is a third party action. Hard drugs can be made illegal as a health hazard. Neither pregnancy nor abortion has to be part of for-profit commerce or a health hazard for the woman. The woman doesn't die of abortion, which is safer for her than late pregnancy/childbirth, but pregnancy isn't illegal. All of your examples are inadequate. They all hinge on claiming that the embryo is of value to the state, when the state has no right to know or find out that the woman is pregnant and no constitutional obligation to the embryo.

Japan isn't going through a death spiral. A negative birth rate lowers the population. In an overpopulated nation, that is an unequivocal good. The only reason any Japanese are screaming about this is that the government worries about money for social pensions. Everywhere you go in capitalism, the rich do not pay adequately, so ordinary people can't afford ordinary living and retiring. That's the fault of out of control capitalist greed on the part of the rich. The only way women can correct the problem is to refuse to reproduce.

Okay. YOu can't pay to murder your baby. That's government control of commerce.

See how that works?

Selling is commerce... murder is not.

You fail.


See how that works?




s

 

[choiceone]

Selling is commerce... murder is not.

You fail.


See how that works?




s

Love this smiley face.

 

[JoeB131]

Surveys all over the place have shown that single women without children are either the happiest people in the US or that they're second only to married men. It is married women who come off as the least happy.

Yes, the childless cat ladies seem really happy.

No, it isn't. There are women who have been impregnated while in a coma. You do not have warrant to assume that a woman consented unless she can prove otherwise, because populationally, men are taller, muscularly much stronger, have stronger bones, and have greater cardiopulmonary capacity. That means they are, populationally, more capable of successfully forcing women to have sex/raping them.

Wow, serious? In a coma? really?

No, you can't sell sex - that's government control of commerce. Assisted suicide is a third party action. Hard drugs can be made illegal as a health hazard. Neither pregnancy nor abortion has to be part of for-profit commerce or a health hazard for the woman. The woman doesn't die of abortion, which is safer for her than late pregnancy/childbirth, but pregnancy isn't illegal. All of your examples are inadequate. They all hinge on claiming that the embryo is of value to the state, when the state has no right to know or find out that the woman is pregnant and no constitutional obligation to the embryo.

So if we can outlaw or regulate those things, we can outlaw or regulate abortion. (I'm for regulating abortion, not outlawing it.)

It seems to me continuing the country and the culture is a vital interest. Or we can just start putting our old people on icebergs, I guess.

No US president has ever been fully responsible for the CIA, and that is a ridiculous idea. The presidents sponsored counter-terrorism actions and the CIA then chose to carry them out by working with whomever, including terrorists themselves. The Freedom Fighters were not Muslim radicals. And FYI the CIA wasn't originally working with the radicals who would grow into the Taliban - it was the Afghan Freedom Fighters themselves who shared their US weapons with them, not the CIA (which wouldn't have been that naive).

The CIA knew exactly what it was doing when it recruited people like Bin Laden (A Yemeni residing in Saudi Arabia) to fight in Afghanistan. They knew it was easier to recruit Arabs than it was to find people who understood Pushtan or Uzbek or Tajik.

I have nothing against requiring the able to learn English - the 70 year old grannie, not so much. And the problem with immigration limits wasn't with the number limitation - it was defining Asians, etc., as unwanted because the people were under the illusion that being white was related to national identity.

Is that an illusion, though? White people from Southern Europe were also limited for a time.

Not disagreeing, but many non-Christians also come. The majority of Asian Americans still vote for Democrats.

Not for long.

40% of Asians voted for Trump in 2024
Compared to 34% in 2020 (despite the openly racist rhetoric about Kung Flu)
And 27% in 2016.

So the Trend is not looking good, the GOP is gaining about 6% a cycle with Asians. At that rate, they should breach 50% by 2032.

Here's the problem Democrats have with Asians. They haven't bought into the pity party that other minorities have bought into about mean old white folks and you need the government to advance you. Especially when DEI policies end up limiting Asians in things like college admissions.

Rather than engaging in "Woe is me, America is racist", they are actually outperforming whites through sheer hard work and grit. And the Democratic brand doesn't really sell there.

The main problem is that it is also going to encourage the lowest US scum to go on violating the Constitution and have disrespect for the law.

I guess.

Look, most people don't really give a shit that some illegal alien is getting his "rights" violated.

Trump will rise or fall on his economy. Either he'll screw up the economy, and get run out of town on a rail, or he'll have a successful economy, and Vance will continue to slow-march us to Gilead.

And the Democrats have no one to blame but themselves.

 

[JoeB131]

This again? Do you like being proven wrong over and over? It's always just a cut and paste away.

Of course abortion can be a responsible option:

Killing a baby isn't responsible

It's just evil.

Just remember, a society that kills a baby because it might be a burden will have no problem killing you if you become a burden.

 

[JoeB131]

Japan isn't going through a death spiral. A negative birth rate lowers the population. In an overpopulated nation, that is an unequivocal good. The only reason any Japanese are screaming about this is that the government worries about money for social pensions. Everywhere you go in capitalism, the rich do not pay adequately, so ordinary people can't afford ordinary living and retiring. That's the fault of out of control capitalist greed on the part of the rich. The only way women can correct the problem is to refuse to reproduce.

That sounds like cutting off your nose to spite your face.



This is a problem. Especially when the vast majority of that population that remains will be too old to be productive.

Japan has it worse than we do because they don't allow much immigration.

 

[weaver2]

This again? Do you like being proven wrong over and over? It's always just a cut and paste away.

Of course abortion can be a responsible option:​

​

--There's nothing responsible about having a kid you cant afford and expecting tax payers to take up that burden with public assistance.​

​

--There's nothing responsible about having a kid you arent emotionally prepared to have and believe you will abuse or neglect.​

​

--There's nothing responsible about having a kid if you know you wont stop drinking, smoking, doing drugs, etc that will damage the unborn.​

--There's nothing responsible about bringing a child into the world where a domestically violent partner will abuse it and teach it the cycle of violence. The father has parental rights the woman cant supersede.​

​

--There's nothing responsible about remaining pregnant and dropping out of high school or college or missing work and not fulfilling your potential in society.​

​

--There's nothing responsible about remaining pregnant/having a child and not being able to fulfill your other commitments and obligations to family, dependents, employer, church, community, society.​

​

--There's nothing responsible about having a kid and giving it up for adoption when there are already over 100,000 kids in America waiting to be adopted. It means one less that's waiting will find a home.​

If you want to continue to show you have a poor grasp of English vocabulary, you can continue to deny this...but the words do make sense to the properly educated.

This ought to be nailed up next to every 10 Commandments poster the religious right puts up.

 

[Gordy327]

Killing a baby isn't responsible

Killing babies is illgal. Abortion generally is not and nothing wrong with it either.

It's just evil.

Opinion based on emotionalism.

Just remember, a society that kills a baby because it might be a burden will have no problem killing you if you become a burden.

So? I certainly do not want to live if I become a burden. That's why I have Advanced Directives in place and made my wishes known just to prevent such an occurrence. I have provisions in place for organ donation or medical research. Not only will I not be a burden, I'll still be contributing to society after my death.

That sounds like cutting off your nose to spite your face.

If it's not your face, it's not your business or concern!

View attachment 67570382

This is a problem. Especially when the vast majority of that population that remains will be too old to be productive.

Japan has it worse than we do because they don't allow much immigration.

We are not Japan. As the baby boomer population dies off, there will be a greater population balance.

 

[Lursa]

Killing a baby isn't responsible

There's no baby. Killing babies IS illegal Most of our society is rational enough to know the unborn is not yet a baby. You might want to join reality.

And work on your vocabulary...look up the definition for "responsible." Either you are lying or really dont know it Here it is again, so you can practice! For you: reality

--There's nothing responsible about having a kid you cant afford and expecting tax payers to take up that burden with public assistance.​

​

--There's nothing responsible about having a kid you arent emotionally prepared to have and believe you will abuse or neglect.​

​

--There's nothing responsible about having a kid if you know you wont stop drinking, smoking, doing drugs, etc that will damage the unborn.​

​

--There's nothing responsible about bringing a child into the world where a domestically violent partner will abuse it and teach it the cycle of violence. The father has parental rights the woman cant supersede.​

​

--There's nothing responsible about remaining pregnant and dropping out of high school or college or missing work and not fulfilling your potential in society.​

​

--There's nothing responsible about remaining pregnant/having a child and not being able to fulfill your other commitments and obligations to family, dependents, employer, church, community, society.​

​

--There's nothing responsible about having a kid and giving it up for adoption when there are already over 100,000 kids in America waiting to be adopted. It means one less waiting will find a home.​

​

If you want to continue to show you have a poor grasp of English vocabulary, you can continue to deny this...but the words do make sense to the properly educated.

 

[weaver2]

This (population decrease) is a problem. Especially when the vast majority of that population that remains will be too old to be productive.

Population growth of the US
1620................ ...2,362 estimate
1720.................556.000 includes slaves, estimate
1820..............9,638,453
1920...........106,021,537
2020............331,449,281

We are not in a population decline. You apparently do not think the Hispanic population that in coming into the US now is an acceptable ethnic group*. The Irish when they came in waves were denigrated as drunkards. Signs saying "No Irish need apply" were common. German immigrants were not welcomed. The Italians and the Greeks were next to be discriminated against. Then the Polish and the Scandinavians. Who do you consider acceptable?

* The Spanish speaking population has actually been on the continent longer than any of the English speaking populations. St.Augustine Florida a Spanish town dates from 1565.

 

[Lursa]

View attachment 67570382

This is a problem. Especially when the vast majority of that population that remains will be too old to be productive.

Japan has it worse than we do because they don't allow much immigration.

So at least you recognize the solution, while still holding onto Japan's racism.

Again, American women are not obligated to produce more worker bees for you or society. Yes or no?

There are millions of people happy to immigrate here legally...ready to work and pay taxes, we can vet them and choose the skills and professions that we need as well. And we dont have to wait 18 yrs for them to get started. Yes or no?

The answer is yes to both, of course. So please explain why you continually object to more legal immigration, which benefitted our country so well in the past? Diversity is a biological concept which shows how genetic diversity strengthens populations and habitats. It applies in a sociological sense as well...more innovation, new ideas, different experiences, etc.

 

[Ahlevah]

No man has a natural right to have sex with a woman who refuses him.

Duh. We call that rape.

Accordingly, no man has a right to reproduce. All you have is a right to try limited inducements to sway a woman toward a decision in your favor. And similarly, no woman has a right to reproduce, either. If you aren't sufficiently attractive, men will not try to induce you to accept them.

So I don't see how anyone can possibly assert that a rape embryo has a right to use a woman's body for its survival without her consent, either.

It’s asserted in the third-trimester by most states, so it would seem that the more relevant issue is not whether a particular embryo is the product of rape, but it’s gestational age.

 

[Ahlevah]

I never said a woman has a right to kill the unborn. Don't mistake me for a different poster. It is my claim that abortion is not killing.

If it was alive one moment and now it’s dead something killed it. This is all part of your attempt to rationalize the deliberate taking of human life.

All the life in an implanted embryo or pre-viable fetus clearly belongs to the woman, because it is only necessary to detach the connection of the placenta to the woman's body for the embryo or pre-viable fetus to die of its own accord. It is her own blood oxygen, nutrients, and anti-bodies, her own homeostasis, her organs' own functioning that keep it alive.

You’re taking a physiological fact and using it to make an ethical distinction. Nothing wrong with that in principle, but personally I have issues equating the life of another human being to personal property.

If she dies, it automatically dies no matter how quickly and carefully it's removed.

Not necessarily. There have been cases where emergency c-sections have been successfully performed on women post mortem. As long as it’s done within four or five minutes after cardiac arrest, the baby has a good chance of survival.

If you want to debate about viable fetuses, to me that's a completely different issue.

Not really, but it is an important distinction.

It is morally repugnant to claim that an implanted embryo that has no brain and offers not one iota of evidence of mind has "equal rights" to those who have. But even so, if her adult son doesn't have the right to put any of his appendages inside any of her sex organs without her consent, why should an embryo? If her newborn infant doesn't have a right to its father's blood for a transfusion to save its life, why should an embryo have a right to implantation in the woman and a right to her blood oxygen?

Personally, I’m not into “the unborn are persons” argument or movement, but there comes a point where they become people—babies—and deserve to be protected. All human life deserves to be treated respectfully and with a certain level of dignity. We’re not talking about growths or tumors here, nor are they organs or other “property.”

No. I consider that distinction to be a moral one. I disagree with your morality. To me, the woman's life and liberty are important and the life of the embryo or pre-viable fetus isn't important unless the woman its implanted in says so. Her organs are substituting for the organs it has not yet grown, and her mind should be substituting for the mind it doesn't yet have. You can't substitute your mind, because you're not substituting your organs, etc.

If it’s a choice between Mom’s life or baby’s, I would say, unfortunately, baby loses. Otherwise, it depends.

 

[Ahlevah]

I don't understand why it's natural for people to feel anything at all about embryos or fetuses. They aren't human babies - they are material that is being made into future human babies. The present is actual. The future is hypothetical.

Haven’t you ever met a woman who miscarried? I have. They’re emotional wrecks.