Speaking of Supreme Court justices and Roe vs Wade, can we talk about the need for common sense abortion control? (firearms, million)

[FatBob96]

Originally Posted by UrbanAdventurer

I've always been agnostic on this one. No strong opinion either way. UrbanAdventurer leans conservative but also has a Machiavellian streak. Why bother bringing yet another mouth to feed into the world if you don't want it and can't realistically afford to take care of it? What's one dead anything in the grand scheme of things. They got off easy if you ask me. This has nothing to do with women's rights per se either, merely one of practicality. it should be an unpleasant last resort because there are plenty of responsible ways to never have to face the issue if you have moral or religious hangups about it.

Agreed.....

However I can't help but notice the referencing yourself in the third person.....

There was another poster a few years back that was fond doing the same thing.

Hmmmmm....I wonder?

[UrbanAdventurer]

Originally Posted by FatBob96

Agreed.....

However I can't help but notice the referencing yourself in the third person.....

There was another poster a few years back that was fond doing the same thing.

Hmmmmm....I wonder?

I've had this screen name for a long time so probably not.

[Marc Paolella]

Originally Posted by FatBob96

Why?

What is it that makes her body more important than the fetus?

What is it in your view that makes one human life more valuable than another?

There is only one body to discuss, that of the realized living woman. A fetus is not a life, it is a collection of cells that can be removed and discarded for any or no reason without ethical implications.

[LordSquidworth]

Originally Posted by FatBob96

Maybe so, but abortion advocates always seem to want to use these types of extreme examples in order to justify the far more common run of the mill baby killing on demand for convenience.

Same goes for instances of pregnancy due to rape etc.

Exceptions to the rule don't disprove the rule.

You must have a sour opinion of women. I've never met one that would ever consider an abortion on demand a convenience.















This thread is ultimately pointless. Abortion is here to stay. Roe vs Wade isn't getting overturned. Abortion is up to the woman. If you feel other wise, it should be a requirement that you adopt an unwanted child. Otherwise, go mind your own.

[wallflash]

Originally Posted by Williepaws

Amen to this post. Men cant imagine that avoiding pregnancy would be their responsibility too.

Men don't get pregnant and have to deal with the consequences . Common sense dictates that the person who WILL get pregnant take responsibility for preventing one if she doesn't want to be pregnant . This is not intended to suggest that men get off free and clear, but just to inject some common sense into a ridiculous question . Women will be the ones having to carry a baby or get an abortion. Rational thinking dictates that they take steps to avoid unwanted pregnancies regardless of what the man does or does not do .

[southwest88]

Originally Posted by TheMoreYouKnow

In 2014 over 600,000 abortions were performed in the United States and with the recent revelation that we'll be getting a new and likely conservative justice added to the court the left has become concerned about the possible overturning of Roe vs Wade. There's talk of the SCOTUS outlawing abortion or possibly throwing the issue back to the states.

Nobody wants to take away your abortions ladies, we just want some common sense abortion controls. I mean, why would so many of these people actually need an abortion? Can't we come to some sort of compromise? Perhaps we could eliminate abortions for anyone who's had an abortion before? What about strict background checks for anyone seeking an abortion? What about closing the Planned Parenthood loophole? These seem like common sense abortion controls that everyone should be able to support right?

No, it's not just the Left concerned about impacts to Roe v. Wade - it's women in general, Liberals, Conservatives who are concerned about privacy laws, I assume Independents & anyone who doesn't want to have to negotiate with the state to regulate their own body - or their daughter's or granddaughter's, or niece's or sister's, for that matter. There's also a concern for the Judiciary as a co-equal branch of government, & the rule of law. TMK, the Supreme Court would not have ruled if Congress had ever found the spine to pass legislation on the subject. Now, going on 47 years after Roe, it's late in the day for Congress to suddenly blink awake & decide to act.

& perhaps Trump would truly like to take the GOP down with him in flames, a kind of political Götterdämmerung. I can't think of anything more likely to motivate a bigger block of women & political allies to rush to the polls & severely spank an unruly party than for a Trump Supreme Court to reverse Roe.

[Marc Paolella]

Originally Posted by FatBob96

Ok for Pete's sake...will you give up on the Sharia nonsense already?


And I've already told you that I'm not religious.

I'm not advocating outlawing abortion, so stop talking like I am.

Your viewpoints are religious and Sharia-like, regardless of your professed beliefs. You want to insert your hands into the social vagina and rummage around, making rules and issuing “common sense” edicts and controls.

And by the way, you did not say you were “not religious”. You said you were not “very” religious. Whatever the hell that means. You are apparently religious enough to be in lockstep with religious arguments that seek to control and define a woman’s body, what it includes, what it omits, what parts of it have rights and when.

So if you don’t want to be viewed as someone favoring Christian variant Sharia, then don’t adopt that viewpoint.

But you actually want to do just that, and you know it. You want to control women and what they can do, when they can do it and under what circumstances. My position is that you should butt out of the lives of others, and leave them free to make this personal decision for themselves without your input.

[wallflash]

The "social vagina"?

[LordSquidworth]

Originally Posted by Marc Paolella

Your viewpoints are religious and Sharia-like, regardless of your professed beliefs. You want to insert your hands into the social vagina and rummage around, making rules and issuing “common sense” edicts and controls.

And by the way, you did not say you were “not religious”. You said you were not “very” religious. Whatever the hell that means. You are apparently religious enough to be in lockstep with religious arguments that seek to control and define a woman’s body, what it includes, what it omits, what parts of it have rights and when.

So if you don’t want to be viewed as someone favoring Christian variant Sharia, then don’t adopt that viewpoint.

But you actually want to do just that, and you know it. You want to control women and what they can do, when they can do it and under what circumstances. My position is that you should butt out of the lives of others, and leave them free to make this personal decision for themselves without your input.

Men trying to impose their say on women's bodies are stuck in the middle ages and suffer from self confidence issues, whether they want to admit or not. Only explanation for those trying to control the opposite sex in such a matter that has zero effect on themselves.


Any woman ever tried to pass any sort of similar law on men would be laughed out of the room.

[dsjj251]

Originally Posted by FatBob96

Agreed.....

However I can't help but notice the referencing yourself in the third person.....

There was another poster a few years back that was fond doing the same thing.

Hmmmmm....I wonder?

I thought the same thing

Originally Posted by UrbanAdventurer

I've had this screen name for a long time so probably not.

the correct answer would be to say it wasnt you, but you purposefully gave vague answer.