• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Supreme Court is allowing Idaho to enforce its strict abortion ban, even in medical emergencies

EMNofSeattle said:
Abortion is absolutely wrong. It is purely a selfish decision and one that is bad for society
Click to expand...
Actually, I think anti-abortion laws are absolutely wrong, are purely selfish, and are bad for society.😜
 
  • Like
Reactions: JMR
trouble13 said:
Now the misandry comes out. When you run out of arguments you fall back on women are victims to men. The fact is women also choose to have sex too. What applies to men should also apply to women and they should be treated equally.
Click to expand...
First, the fact that pregnancy and childbirth are more physically dangerous to women than men's work is to men in the vast majority of cases is just true and has nothing to do with misandry.

In addition, you overrate the sexual appetites of women. Back in the 1800s and early 20th century, it was very clear that women did not just choose to have sex, too. It was routinely men who talked women into sex, not the other way around and certainly not equal. Even in the 1950s, many men in the US had extra women on the side because their wives didn't want sex enough if at all any more - this is a theme even on contemporary websites across the web. If you take away the right to choose, give it two to three years and men's complaints about sexless marriages or partnerships will increase so much it'll shock your socks off.
trouble13 said:
Using what traditionally was true is our past is a BS excuse that does not justify how we do things today.

We identified that women were being mistreated and we changed it. Men are also being mistreated and that needs to be changed too.

That is an uncomfortable truth that women need to learn to accept. Equality does not mean we do everything that works out best for one sex at the expense of the other.
Click to expand...
This will backfire, because it is a known fact that lots of women fake sexual interest for the sake of their men at least some part of the time - they fake orgasms, too. They do this because the amount of sex most women want isn't something that would make the men feel good. Even medical websites discuss the issue.

But you see, women don't ever have to have sex if they don't want to. They can choose not to marry, not to live with a guy, not to have sex, not to engage in courtship, and not even to date. That is an uncomfortable truth men are going to need to learn to accept. Equality means that you can do your thing by yourself and I can do my thing by myself, because marriage and sex are just not inevitable. We don't have to have sex and don't have to produce offspring.
 
choiceone said:
First, the fact that pregnancy and childbirth are more physically dangerous to women than men's work is to men in the vast majority of cases is just true and has nothing to do with misandry.

In addition, you overrate the sexual appetites of women. Back in the 1800s and early 20th century, it was very clear that women did not just choose to have sex, too. It was routinely men who talked women into sex, not the other way around and certainly not equal. Even in the 1950s, many men in the US had extra women on the side because their wives didn't want sex enough if at all any more - this is a theme even on contemporary websites across the web. If you take away the right to choose, give it two to three years and men's complaints about sexless marriages or partnerships will increase so much it'll shock your socks off.

This will backfire, because it is a known fact that lots of women fake sexual interest for the sake of their men at least some part of the time - they fake orgasms, too. They do this because the amount of sex most women want isn't something that would make the men feel good. Even medical websites discuss the issue.

But you see, women don't ever have to have sex if they don't want to. They can choose not to marry, not to live with a guy, not to have sex, not to engage in courtship, and not even to date. That is an uncomfortable truth men are going to need to learn to accept. Equality means that you can do your thing by yourself and I can do my thing by myself, because marriage and sex are just not inevitable. We don't have to have sex and don't have to produce offspring.
Click to expand...
There's uncomfortable truths that everyone is going to have to learn to accept. That statement includes women who think they can use sex to blackmail men into accepting being treated unfairly. Men are increasingly becoming uninterested in having relationships with women and women are finding it difficult to find a partner to start a family with.
 
trixare4kids said:
Better yet, move out of the country if they can’t accept states‘ rights, or supreme court rulings. Canada will take them. 😂
Click to expand...
TBH, I wish most of the far leftists would leave......to Venezuela or Cuba.
 
choiceone said:
First, the fact that pregnancy and childbirth are more physically dangerous to women than men's work is to men in the vast majority of cases is just true and has nothing to do with misandry.

In addition, you overrate the sexual appetites of women. Back in the 1800s and early 20th century, it was very clear that women did not just choose to have sex, too. It was routinely men who talked women into sex, not the other way around and certainly not equal. Even in the 1950s, many men in the US had extra women on the side because their wives didn't want sex enough if at all any more - this is a theme even on contemporary websites across the web. If you take away the right to choose, give it two to three years and men's complaints about sexless marriages or partnerships will increase so much it'll shock your socks off.

This will backfire, because it is a known fact that lots of women fake sexual interest for the sake of their men at least some part of the time - they fake orgasms, too. They do this because the amount of sex most women want isn't something that would make the men feel good. Even medical websites discuss the issue.

But you see, women don't ever have to have sex if they don't want to. They can choose not to marry, not to live with a guy, not to have sex, not to engage in courtship, and not even to date. That is an uncomfortable truth men are going to need to learn to accept. Equality means that you can do your thing by yourself and I can do my thing by myself, because marriage and sex are just not inevitable. We don't have to have sex and don't have to produce offspring.
Click to expand...

You'll note that he completely ignored my post to you, that did show he's wrong. He has no comebacks. Maybe I should have tagged him but I'm sure he saw it.
 
trixare4kids said:
Better yet, move out of the country if they can’t accept states‘ rights, or supreme court rulings. Canada will take them. 😂
Click to expand...
Yes, but they'll have to put up with a nation that has clarified that embryos and fetuses aren't and can't be people and that women are, and that abortion is legal without limit.
 
Paradoxical said:
TBH, I wish most of the far leftists would leave......to Venezuela or Cuba.
Click to expand...
This is silly. The leftists are more like Canadians and the anti-choicers are more like Latin American states, as Canada has no restrictions on abortion and most Latin American states have extreme anti-abortion laws. I don't see any reason why the states shouldn't have MTG's divorce and the pro-choice states can ally with Canada and Mexico, while the red states can ally with right wing Central and South American states.

In case you don't know which is which, the people who would ally with Canadians and Mexicans would be in Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Nevada, probably Arizona, California, Oregon, Washington, possibly Montana, Minnesota, probably Wisconsin, Illinois, Kentucky, Michigan, as of today Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Maryland, Delaware, New York, New Jersey, Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, and Maine, 27 states, plus Hawai'i and Alaska. Except for Hawai'i, these states all share borders with each other and/or Canada or Mexico, so they could be a huge contiguous nation if they wanted to. Note that this would work with or without Montana, Wisconsin, or Ohio. It would really isolate Indiana, though. If North Carolina and Georgia want to join up, they can, though this will really isolate South Carolina.

Of course, the rest of the states could form a banana republic.
 
Hamish Howl said:
apnews.com

The Supreme Court is allowing Idaho to enforce its strict abortion ban, even in medical emergencies

Supreme Court is allowing Idaho to enforce its strict abortion ban, even in medical emergencies, while a legal fight continues.
apnews.com apnews.com



This is the only thing the right wing can actually do: Kill women.
Click to expand...



I do not understand how the constitution of the United States allows the state authority over the personal & physical rights of a free citizen.

Where in your gloriously championed constitution does it give the state the power of authority over a woman's body?

Talk about the 'personal' of personal rights and freedoms, ones health can be no more personal. This is why certain of us have laughed at the 'God bless America' crowd as the entire system is hypocrisy when it comes to women and blacks. The only "free" people are white, wealthy males.

In closing, Canada ****ed up and ended up without ANY law concerning abortion. The topic has been deemed 'too ****ing hot' by all politicians and so nothing is our solution.

Guess what....Canada has the most moderate statistics when it comes to abortion. I'd say that proves women know more about this than male legislators who spend their time stabbing each other in the back.... Go Mike Johnson!
 
trixare4kids said:
Better yet, move out of the country if they can’t accept states‘ rights, or supreme court rulings. Canada will take them. 😂
Click to expand...
We're kind of thankful that the border between Idaho and BC is only about 60' long.
 
choiceone said:
This is silly. The leftists are more like Canadians and the anti-choicers are more like Latin American states, as Canada has no restrictions on abortion and most Latin American states have extreme anti-abortion laws. I don't see any reason why the states shouldn't have MTG's divorce and the pro-choice states can ally with Canada and Mexico, while the red states can ally with right wing Central and South American states.

In case you don't know which is which, the people who would ally with Canadians and Mexicans would be in Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Nevada, probably Arizona, California, Oregon, Washington, possibly Montana, Minnesota, probably Wisconsin, Illinois, Kentucky, Michigan, as of today Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Maryland, Delaware, New York, New Jersey, Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, and Maine, 27 states, plus Hawai'i and Alaska. Except for Hawai'i, these states all share borders with each other and/or Canada or Mexico, so they could be a huge contiguous nation if they wanted to. Note that this would work with or without Montana, Wisconsin, or Ohio. It would really isolate Indiana, though. If North Carolina and Georgia want to join up, they can, though this will really isolate South Carolina.

Of course, the rest of the states could form a banana republic.
Click to expand...
Canada, with Trudeau, the dictator, now has the same problems as have been caused by the leftists in blue cities and people are moving out, just as they are exiting from California.
 
Fearandloathing said:
I do not understand how the constitution of the United States allows the state authority over the personal & physical rights of a free citizen.

Where in your gloriously championed constitution does it give the state the power of authority over a woman's body?

Talk about the 'personal' of personal rights and freedoms, ones health can be no more personal. This is why certain of us have laughed at the 'God bless America' crowd as the entire system is hypocrisy when it comes to women and blacks. The only "free" people are white, wealthy males.

In closing, Canada ****ed up and ended up without ANY law concerning abortion. The topic has been deemed 'too ****ing hot' by all politicians and so nothing is our solution.

Guess what....Canada has the most moderate statistics when it comes to abortion. I'd say that proves women know more about this than male legislators who spend their time stabbing each other in the back.... Go Mike Johnson!
Click to expand...
You have to remember that we're up to our neck in flyover po'buckers.
 
Hamish Howl said:
UNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNG
Click to expand...
Didn't the SC there just slap that dictator down....like Biden has been slapped down so many times but keeps violating SC rulings?
 
Integrityrespec said:
Just how many women do you think die? Since abortion for a womans health is only around 2% of all abortions and far from all of those actually die, it can't be anywhere near the almost 1 million abortions a year that were taking place which resulted in almost a million lives lost a year. So you are ok will a million?
Click to expand...
Yall need to get on jahweh about killing the unborn.

He has us humans beat hands down.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom