Deleted
Posts: 0
May 20, 2024 21:18:22 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 3, 2020 16:09:47 GMT
A stolen SCOTUS seat and a slew of state laws targeting Roe. How much further backwards can we go in 2020. We've got a war on deck and now we can lose Roe. BUTTER EMAILS!!!! www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/18/18-1323/127231/20200102104952653_18-1323%20Amicus%20Brief%20of%20207%20Members%20of%20Congress.pdfIs yours here? What will you do about it? 39 GOP Senators and 168 Reps (including a few dems) APPENDIX—LIST OF AMICI CURIAE U.S. SENATE John Kennedy (LA) Marsha Blackburn (TN) John Barrasso (WY) Roy Blunt (MO) John Boozman (AR) Mike Braun (IN) Richard Burr (NC) Bill Cassidy, M.D. (LA) John Cornyn (TX) Tom Cotton (AR) Kevin Cramer (ND) Mike Crapo (ID) Ted Cruz (TX) Steve Daines (MT) Michael B. Enzi (WY) Joni Ernst (IA) Deb Fischer (NE) Chuck Grassley (IA) John Hoeven (ND) Cindy Hyde-Smith (MS) James M. Inhofe (OK) Ron Johnson (WI) James Lankford (OK) Michael S. Lee (UT) Jerry Moran (KS) Rand Paul (KY) Rob Portman (OH) James E. Risch (ID) Pat Roberts (KS) Mitt Romney (UT) Mike Rounds (SD) Marco Rubio (FL) Ben Sasse (NE) Tim Scott (SC) Thom Tillis (NC) John Thune (SD) Pat Toomey (PA) Roger F. Wicker (MS) Todd Young (IN) U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Steve Scalise (LA-01) Michael Johnson (LA-04) Ralph Abraham, M.D. (LA-05) Robert B. Aderholt (AL-04) Rick W. Allen (GA-12) Kelly Armstrong (ND-AL) Jodey C. Arrington (TX-19) Brian Babin, D.D.S. (TX-36) Don Bacon (NE-02) James R. Baird (IN-04) Troy Balderson (OH-12) Jim Banks (IN-03) Andy Barr (KY-06) Jack Bergman (MI-01) Andy Biggs (AZ-05) Dan Bishop (NC-09) Rob Bishop (UT-01) Mike Bost (IL-12) Kevin Brady (TX-08) Mo Brooks (AL-05) Ken Buck (CO-04) Larry Bucshon, M.D. (IN-08) Ted Budd (NC-13) Tim Burchett (TN-02) Michael C. Burgess, M.D. (TX-26) Bradley Byrne (AL-01) Earl L. “Buddy” Carter (GA-01) Steve Chabot (OH-01) Liz Cheney (WY-AL) Ben Cline (VA-06) Michael Cloud (TX-27) Tom Cole (OK-04) Doug Collins (GA-09) James Comer (KY-01) K. Michael Conaway (TX-11) Paul Cook (CA-08) Rick Crawford (AR-01) Dan Crenshaw (TX-02) John R. Curtis (UT-03) Warren Davidson (OH-08) Rodney Davis (IL-13) Mario Diaz-Balart (FL-25) Jeff Duncan (SC-03) Neal Dunn, M.D. (FL-02) Tom Emmer (MN-06) Ron Estes (KS-04) A. Drew Ferguson, IV (GA-03) Chuck Fleischmann (TN-03) Bill Flores (TX-17) Jeff Fortenberry (NE-01) Virginia Foxx (NC-05) Russ Fulcher (ID-01) Matt Gaetz (FL-01) Greg Gianforte (MT-AL) Bob Gibbs (OH-07) Louie Gohmert (TX-01) Anthony Gonzalez (OH-16) Lance Gooden (TX-05) Paul A. Gosar, D.D.S. (AZ-04) Kay Granger (TX-12) Garret Graves (LA-06) Sam Graves (MO-06) Tom Graves (GA-14) Mark E. Green, M.D. (TN-07) Glenn Grothman (WI-06) Michael Guest (MS-03) Brett Guthrie (KY-02) Jim Hagedorn (MN-01) Andy Harris, M.D. (MD-01) Vicky Hartzler (MO-04) Kevin Hern (OK-01) Jody B. Hice (GA-10) Clay Higgins (LA-03) French Hill (AR-02) George Holding (NC-02) Richard Hudson (NC-08) Bill Huizenga (MI-02) Bill Johnson (OH-06) Dusty Johnson (SD-AL) Jim Jordan (OH-04) John Joyce, M.D. (PA-13) Fred Keller (PA-12) Mike Kelly (PA-16) Trent Kelly (MS-01) Peter T. King (NY-02) Steve King (IA-04) Adam Kinzinger (IL-16) Darin LaHood (IL-18) Doug LaMalfa (CA-01) Doug Lamborn (CO-05) Robert E. Latta (OH-05) Debbie Lesko (AZ-08) Daniel W. Lipinski (IL-03) Billy Long (MO-07) Barry Loudermilk (GA-11) Blaine Luetkemeyer (MO-03) Roger Marshall, M.D. (KS-01) Brian Mast (FL-18) Kevin McCarthy (CA-23) Tom McClintock (CA-04) Patrick McHenry (NC-10) David B. McKinley, P.E. (WV-01) Mark Meadows (NC-11) Daniel P. Meuser (PA-09) Carol D. Miller (WV-03) Paul Mitchell (MI-10) John R. Moolenaar (MI-04) Alex X. Mooney (WV-02) Markwayne Mullin (OK-02) Gregory F. Murphy, M.D. (NC-03) Dan Newhouse (WA-04) Ralph Norman (SC-05) Pete Olson (TX-22) Steve Palazzo (MS-04) Gary Palmer (AL-06) Greg Pence (IN-06) Scott Perry (PA-10) Collin C. Peterson (MN-07) John Ratcliffe (TX-04) Guy Reschenthaler (PA-14) Tom Rice (SC-07) Denver Riggleman (VA-05) Martha Roby (AL-02) Cathy McMorris Rodgers (WA-05) Phil D. Roe, M.D. (TN-01) Hal Rogers (KY-05) Mike D. Rogers (AL-03) Francis Rooney (FL-19) John Rose (TN-06) David Rouzer (NC-07) Chip Roy (TX-21) John Rutherford (FL-04) David Schweikert (AZ-06) Austin Scott (GA-08) F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. (WI-05) John Shimkus (IL-15) Mike Simpson (ID-02) Adrian Smith (NE-03) Christopher H. Smith (NJ-04) Jason Smith (MO-08) Lloyd Smucker (PA-11) Ross Spano (FL-15) Pete Stauber (MN-08) Brian Steil (WI-01) W. Gregory Steube (FL-17) Chris Stewart (UT-02) Van Taylor (TX-03) Glenn ‘GT’ Thompson (PA-15) William Timmons (SC-04) Scott Tipton (CO-03) Michael R. Turner (OH-10) Ann Wagner (MO-02) Tim Walberg (MI-07) Mark Walker (NC-06) Jackie Walorski (IN-02) Michael Waltz (FL-06) Steve Watkins (KS-02) Randy Weber (TX-14) Daniel Webster (FL-11) Brad Wenstrup, D.P.M. (OH-02) Bruce Westerman (AR-04) Roger Williams (TX-25) Joe Wilson (SC-02) Rob Wittman (VA-01) Steve Womack (AR-03) Ron Wright (TX-06) Ted S. Yoho, D.V.M. (FL-03) Lee Zeldin (NY-01) |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 20, 2024 21:18:22 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 3, 2020 16:30:15 GMT
I read about this yesterday.
One of the reasons to overturn Roe v Wade is because it’s not “workable”.
I’ve been pondering what they mean by not being “ workable” and haven’t come up with an explanation.
I’m sure they explained why in their whatever it is, but I’m tired of spin and lies so I’m just trying to figure out what it means myself.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 20, 2024 21:18:22 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 3, 2020 16:46:36 GMT
I read about this yesterday. One of the reasons to overturn Roe v Wade is because it’s not “workable”. I’ve been pondering what they mean by not being “ workable” and haven’t come up with an explanation. I’m sure they explained why in their whatever it is, but I’m tired of spin and lies so I’m just trying to figure out what it means myself. Roe isn't "workable" despite being the law of the land for over 40 years. But a mobbed up incompetent narcissist who cares only for his own bank account and adulation is TOTES WORKABLE as PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. That makes GOP sense. |
|
|
|
Post by freecharlie on Jan 3, 2020 16:47:59 GMT
I read about this yesterday. One of the reasons to overturn Roe v Wade is because it’s not “workable”. I’ve been pondering what they mean by not being “ workable” and haven’t come up with an explanation. I’m sure they explained why in their whatever it is, but I’m tired of spin and lies so I’m just trying to figure out what it means myself. what the hell does workable mean? Ugh. In addition to wanting to overturn Roe, these people are also probably against low cost and/or long term birth control. I've said it here before, but when given access to long term BBC, the teen pregnancy and abortions dropped significantly in Colorado. Fewer abortions, fewer kids born into poverty or situations where the parents have a hard time taking care of them, fewer families that need WIC, Medicaid, and welfare seems like a GOP dream...but that doesn't make them feel superior over women and the poor. |
|
|
|
Post by mrssmith on Jan 3, 2020 17:01:59 GMT
Daniel W. Lipinski (IL-03) has got to go. I need to do more to get Marie Newman elected in his place!
|
|
|
|
Post by pierkiss on Jan 3, 2020 17:08:48 GMT
So now congressmen and women can just basically sign a petition on something they want and then the Supreme Court will just *poof* overturn it??? No. That is not how this works.
|
|
|
|
Post by kmcginn on Jan 3, 2020 17:10:39 GMT
Of course both my senators and my representative (along with several others from the state) are on the list.
LA is a deep red state!
While I do not condone abortion, I do not think the government should legislate it. The choice should be between a woman, her doctor and her god.
I've said it before - Republicans are not pro-life, they are pro-birth. After the child is born, they don't care what happens!
|
|
|
|
Post by mlynn on Jan 5, 2020 10:42:42 GMT
Just an observation. Not saying either side or issue is right or wrong or where my beliefs fall.
I find it interesting that when it comes to abortion, people remark that it has been the law of the land for FORTY years so get used to it. "If you don't want abortion, don't get one. But keep your hands off my reproductive rights.
However gun ownership by the citizenry has been the law of the land for far longer and we need to get rid of it. But saying "if you don't want a gun, don't get one. But keep your hands off my gun rights" is considered outrageous.
|
|
|
|
Post by LavenderLayoutLady on Jan 5, 2020 10:56:09 GMT
Just an observation. Not saying either side or issue is right or wrong or where my beliefs fall. I find it interesting that when it comes to abortion, people remark that it has been the law of the land for FORTY years so get used to it. "If you don't want abortion, don't get one. But keep your hands off my reproductive rights. However gun ownership by the citizenry has been the law of the land for far longer and we need to get rid of it. But saying "if you don't want a gun, don't get one. But keep your hands off my gun rights" is considered outrageous. And how many times have innocent school students died at the hands of a woman exercising her reproductive rights and walking into a school?! |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 20, 2024 21:18:22 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 5, 2020 11:07:39 GMT
Just an observation. Not saying either side or issue is right or wrong or where my beliefs fall. I find it interesting that when it comes to abortion, people remark that it has been the law of the land for FORTY years so get used to it. "If you don't want abortion, don't get one. But keep your hands off my reproductive rights. However gun ownership by the citizenry has been the law of the land for far longer and we need to get rid of it. But saying "if you don't want a gun, don't get one. But keep your hands off my gun rights" is considered outrageous. Are you seriously comparing the two legislation ? Surely not? No other person's life is affected by a woman choosing to have an abortion, except her own. What she chooses to do with her own body is entirely up to her. A gun in the wrong hands does and has affected other people's life at a devastating affect to a lot of families. I don't see anyone advocating getting rid of guns but campaigning to have effective legislation to protect the lives of others. It is outrageous that others are put at risk, a life saving risk, because of this gun loving " keep your hands off my gun rights" culture that exists in the US. |
|
DEX
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,355 
|
Post by DEX on Jan 5, 2020 12:54:07 GMT
My son is adopted so I always considered myself pro life. That was until I found out I had an ectopic pregnancy and might have also had an uterine pregnancy as well. I had been exposed to X-rays during the discovery of the ectopic pregnancy which put me at greater risk for serious birth defects. I chose to have a D/C along with the removal of my fallopian tube. I didn't have a uterine pregnancy but it helped me to change my view.
I am sad to see that what is considered now established law would be reconsidered. I now believe in the right of all women to determine their reproductive rights based on what they think is best for themselves. I would hate that someone else could determine that a potential fetus, that had been exposed to X-Rays, must be born with disabilities due to the X-Rays. I am again reminded that Pro Life seems to equate to life at birth and with no consideration as to who will support and be financially responsible for that life.
|
|
|
|
Post by lisae on Jan 5, 2020 13:06:50 GMT
All 3 of mine are on the list. I vote against Virginia Foxx every chance I get.
Burr isn't running when he seat comes open in 2 years I think. I plan to write to him on the impeachment once it finally gets to the Senate because since he isn't running, there might be a slim hope he would find some patriotism and common sense. He doesn't have to pander.
Tillis is running this time and I'd already decided to vote against him. He was standing up to Trump on something a few months ago but backed down.
|
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Jan 5, 2020 13:41:18 GMT
Just an observation. Not saying either side or issue is right or wrong or where my beliefs fall. I find it interesting that when it comes to abortion, people remark that it has been the law of the land for FORTY years so get used to it. "If you don't want abortion, don't get one. But keep your hands off my reproductive rights. However gun ownership by the citizenry has been the law of the land for far longer and we need to get rid of it. But saying "if you don't want a gun, don't get one. But keep your hands off my gun rights" is considered outrageous. Actually, no. The 2nd amendment was not considered to confer an individual right to bear arms until the Heller decision in 2008, a whopping 12 years ago - a decision bought and paid for with NRA lobby money to keep the cash flowing to gun manufacturers. So I'm sorry, I don't see the equivalency. |
|
AnotherPea
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 2,968
|
Post by AnotherPea on Jan 5, 2020 13:43:24 GMT
Just an observation. Not saying either side or issue is right or wrong or where my beliefs fall. I find it interesting that when it comes to abortion, people remark that it has been the law of the land for FORTY years so get used to it. "If you don't want abortion, don't get one. But keep your hands off my reproductive rights. However gun ownership by the citizenry has been the law of the land for far longer and we need to get rid of it. But saying "if you don't want a gun, don't get one. But keep your hands off my gun rights" is considered outrageous. Are you seriously comparing the two legislation ? Surely not? No other person's life is affected by a woman choosing to have an abortion, except her own. What she chooses to do with her own body is entirely up to her. A gun in the wrong hands does and has affected other people's life at a devastating affect to a lot of families. I don't see anyone advocating getting rid of guns but campaigning to have effective legislation to protect the lives of others. It is outrageous that others are put at risk, a life saving risk, because of this gun loving " keep your hands off my gun rights" culture that exists in the US. Well, the baby’s life is pretty affected. If you don’t believe that a fetus is an innocent human, that is your opinion. But others disagree. I don’t know when life begins. I can see both sides of the argument. But for a lot of people, life unequivocally begins at conception and/or implantation. For those people, saving an innocent life is important. Would you (general you) do whatever you physically could to prevent a one-month-old from being killed? How far would you go? What would you do if there was a system in place where mothers could kill their babies 7 months after birth? Would you say that was between them, their doctor and their god? Would you fight to get the laws changed? For some people, that child 7 months prior to birth is just as important as the child 7 months after. Again, I don’t know the answers. But I do know that no one else does either. Everyone fights this fight based on what they believe. For the pro-life people I know, this isn’t about taking rights away from women. It’s about protecting rights for babies. |
|
|
|
Post by gar on Jan 5, 2020 13:45:23 GMT
Just an observation. Not saying either side or issue is right or wrong or where my beliefs fall. I find it interesting that when it comes to abortion, people remark that it has been the law of the land for FORTY years so get used to it. "If you don't want abortion, don't get one. But keep your hands off my reproductive rights. However gun ownership by the citizenry has been the law of the land for far longer and we need to get rid of it. But saying "if you don't want a gun, don't get one. But keep your hands off my gun rights" is considered outrageous. No one is trying to ban guns. Major difference in a very strange comparison. |
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Jan 5, 2020 13:55:56 GMT
Are you seriously comparing the two legislation ? Surely not? No other person's life is affected by a woman choosing to have an abortion, except her own. What she chooses to do with her own body is entirely up to her. A gun in the wrong hands does and has affected other people's life at a devastating affect to a lot of families. I don't see anyone advocating getting rid of guns but campaigning to have effective legislation to protect the lives of others. It is outrageous that others are put at risk, a life saving risk, because of this gun loving " keep your hands off my gun rights" culture that exists in the US. Well, the baby’s life is pretty affected. If you don’t believe that a fetus is an innocent human, that is your opinion. But others disagree. I don’t know when life begins. I can see both sides of the argument. But for a lot of people, life unequivocally begins at conception and/or implantation. For those people, saving an innocent life is important. Would you (general you) do whatever you physically could to prevent a one-month-old from being killed? How far would you go? What would you do if there was a system in place where mothers could kill their babies 7 months after birth? Would you say that was between them, their doctor and their god? Would you fight to get the laws changed? For some people, that child 7 months prior to birth is just as important as the child 7 months after. Again, I don’t know the answers. But I do know that no one else does either. Everyone fights this fight based on what they believe. For the pro-life people I know, this isn’t about taking rights away from women. It’s about protecting rights for babies. Since no one is suggesting that anyone should be able to kill a 7 month old child, that’s a red herring argument designed to deflect rather than discuss. I don’t think anyone else gets to decide what happens in my uterus. Period. No matter how sincere their beliefs. My body, my choice. Absolute end of discussion. Ask yourself why the “pro-life” right has so little concern for the lives of women. And until the “pro-life” right starts supporting programs that allow for all children born to have a decent life outside the womb - including immigrant and refugee children - the “we care about babies” argument is disingenuous in the extreme. People may be telling themselves they care about babies because it’s easier than admitting to themselves how they really feel, but actions carry a lot more weight than words. And the legislative actions and voting records of so-called pro-life Republicans are weighted heavily against any concern for the lives of those already born. People who are truly interested in reducing the number of abortions need to direct their efforts towards making effective birth control available to every woman, sex ed in schools that actually teaches about sex (not abstinence only), and making sure that no pregnant woman has to worry about whether she’s going to be able to afford food, medical care and decent housing for her child. Or whether it could end up in a cage. |
|
|
|
Post by elaine on Jan 5, 2020 14:00:10 GMT
Well, the baby’s life is pretty affected. If you don’t believe that a fetus is an innocent human, that is your opinion. But others disagree. I don’t know when life begins. I can see both sides of the argument. But for a lot of people, life unequivocally begins at conception and/or implantation. For those people, saving an innocent life is important. Would you (general you) do whatever you physically could to prevent a one-month-old from being killed? How far would you go? What would you do if there was a system in place where mothers could kill their babies 7 months after birth? Would you say that was between them, their doctor and their god? Would you fight to get the laws changed? For some people, that child 7 months prior to birth is just as important as the child 7 months after. Again, I don’t know the answers. But I do know that no one else does either. Everyone fights this fight based on what they believe. For the pro-life people I know, this isn’t about taking rights away from women. It’s about protecting rights for babies. Since no one is suggesting that anyone should be able to kill a 7 month old child, that’s a red herring argument designed to deflect rather than discuss. I don’t think anyone else gets to decide what happens in my uterus. Period. No matter how sincere their beliefs. My body, my choice. Absolute end of discussion. Ask yourself why the “pro-life” right has so little concern for the lives of women. And until the “pro-life” right starts supporting programs that allow for all children born to have a decent life outside the womb - including immigrant and refugee children - the “we care about babies” argument is disingenuous in the extreme. People may be telling themselves they care about babies because it’s easier than admitting to themselves how they really feel, but actions carry a lot more weight than words. And the legislative actions and voting records of so-called pro-life Republicans is weighted heavily against any concern for the lives of those already born. People who are truly interested in reducing the number of abortions need to direct their efforts towards making effective birth control available to every woman, sex ed in schools that actually teaches about sex (not abstinence only), and making sure that no pregnant woman has to worry about whether she’s going to be able to afford food, medical care and decent housing for her child. Or whether it could end up in a cage. Very well said. |
|
|
|
Post by elaine on Jan 5, 2020 14:12:13 GMT
Wait, didn’t we just have someone very forcefully on another thread declare that NO Republicans wanted to overturn Roe v Wade and that she didn’t understand the concern that it might be if the GOP has its way?
|
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Jan 5, 2020 14:16:41 GMT
Wait, didn’t we just have someone very forcefully on another thread declare that NO Republicans wanted to overturn Roe v Wade and that she didn’t understand the concern that it might be if the GOP has its way? Why yes, yes we did. Wonder if her senators and reps signed this letter? |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 20, 2024 21:18:22 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 5, 2020 14:41:36 GMT
Just an observation. Not saying either side or issue is right or wrong or where my beliefs fall. I find it interesting that when it comes to abortion, people remark that it has been the law of the land for FORTY years so get used to it. "If you don't want abortion, don't get one. But keep your hands off my reproductive rights. However gun ownership by the citizenry has been the law of the land for far longer and we need to get rid of it. But saying "if you don't want a gun, don't get one. But keep your hands off my gun rights" is considered outrageous. And how many times have innocent school students died at the hands of a woman exercising her reproductive rights and walking into a school?! Right? What a moronic equivalence. If all those shot by assault weapons and/or in mass shootings were clomping around inside the bodies of the shooters, those might be worth discussing as parallel situations. Until then, not even close. Oh, and for the person who doesn't understand the difference between a 7 mo before birth person and a 7 mo after birth person, here's a little hint. Only ONE of those is INSIDE ANOTHER PERSON'S ORGAN. This is not rocket surgery. |
|
|
|
Post by pierkiss on Jan 5, 2020 14:44:16 GMT
Does anyone else ever think that they are so anti-abortion and anti-birth control because they are very concerned about the dwindling population numbers in this country? I read somewhere that the birth rate has decreased and that the government was concerned about the newer generations not being big enough to support the older generations via social security. No idea when or where I read that at.
|
|
|
|
Post by hop2 on Jan 5, 2020 15:47:46 GMT
No, neither of my senators are on there and the NJ rep that is is not my district. I’m sort of surprised which NJ district has elected a Rep that would sign that that’s not an overly conservative area.
I’m also highly shocked which district the NY rep who signed that is from. Totally totally shocked by that.
|
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Jan 5, 2020 16:01:44 GMT
Does anyone else ever think that they are so anti-abortion and anti-birth control because they are very concerned about the dwindling population numbers in this country? I read somewhere that the birth rate has decreased and that the government was concerned about the newer generations not being big enough to support the older generations via social security. No idea when or where I read that at. Ahem. They're concerned about the declining *white* birth rate. Our workforce can be adequately sustained with immigrants, as it has been literally since the creation of our country. The fact that the immigrants are now brown skinned is the real problem. Republicans have this false narrative that we're somehow a white country with a long tradition of white culture that needs to be preserved. False. |
|
|
|
Post by crazy4scraps on Jan 5, 2020 16:17:38 GMT
Does anyone else ever think that they are so anti-abortion and anti-birth control because they are very concerned about the dwindling population numbers in this country? I read somewhere that the birth rate has decreased and that the government was concerned about the newer generations not being big enough to support the older generations via social security. No idea when or where I read that at. I think it might have been Paul Ryan? I vaguely recall something about him saying Americans needed to have more babies because the birth rates are declining. Here’s an article from Newsweek from a couple years ago about it: www.newsweek.com/paul-ryan-wants-you-have-more-kids-749328What was so stupid about that IIRC is at about the time all this was in the news, all the thousands of DACA people were starting to be threatened with deportation. How freaking dumb is that? Here you have a bunch of people who are already here, educated, working, etc. and already contributing to society, but yeah, let’s ship them out and encourage Americans to have more kids that would then have to be fed, clothed, housed, educated for at minimum 18 years before they can do a single thing to contribute to society? WTAF? ETA: Merge is absolutely correct. |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 20, 2024 21:18:22 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 5, 2020 16:22:22 GMT
Just an observation. Not saying either side or issue is right or wrong or where my beliefs fall. I find it interesting that when it comes to abortion, people remark that it has been the law of the land for FORTY years so get used to it. "If you don't want abortion, don't get one. But keep your hands off my reproductive rights. However gun ownership by the citizenry has been the law of the land for far longer and we need to get rid of it. But saying "if you don't want a gun, don't get one. But keep your hands off my gun rights" is considered outrageous. There is a difference between guns and abortion rights. The abortion foes want to make it illegal to have an abortion period, end of discussion. Far as I know, with the exception of a few wack jobs, no one is demanding that owning a gun become illegal. It would appear your observation is comparing 🍎s to 🍊s |
|
|
|
Post by nightnurse on Jan 5, 2020 16:28:19 GMT
Are you seriously comparing the two legislation ? Surely not? No other person's life is affected by a woman choosing to have an abortion, except her own. What she chooses to do with her own body is entirely up to her. A gun in the wrong hands does and has affected other people's life at a devastating affect to a lot of families. I don't see anyone advocating getting rid of guns but campaigning to have effective legislation to protect the lives of others. It is outrageous that others are put at risk, a life saving risk, because of this gun loving " keep your hands off my gun rights" culture that exists in the US. Well, the baby’s life is pretty affected. If you don’t believe that a fetus is an innocent human, that is your opinion. But others disagree. I don’t know when life begins. I can see both sides of the argument. But for a lot of people, life unequivocally begins at conception and/or implantation. For those people, saving an innocent life is important. Would you (general you) do whatever you physically could to prevent a one-month-old from being killed? How far would you go? What would you do if there was a system in place where mothers could kill their babies 7 months after birth? Would you say that was between them, their doctor and their god? Would you fight to get the laws changed? For some people, that child 7 months prior to birth is just as important as the child 7 months after. Again, I don’t know the answers. But I do know that no one else does either. Everyone fights this fight based on what they believe. For the pro-life people I know, this isn’t about taking rights away from women. It’s about protecting rights for babies. I believe life begins at conception. I’m still pro choice. Because no one has the right to someone else’s body, their organs. Need a Kidney? You can’t compel anyone to give you one. A corpse can take all its organs to the grave. A corpse has more bodily autonomy than republicans want to give women. A fetus cannot live outside the womb, it’s dependent on its mother and no one should be able to compel another person to risk their Heath and share their body. A seven month old can live outside another person’s body, there’s the difference. And the thought exercise I’ve seen repeated a Number of times is: A building is on fire, wirh a four years old child and a Cylinder with a hundred embryos. You can only carry one. You saving the already born four year old, or looking that scared child in the eye while you save a hundred potential four year olds? |
|
michellegb
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,915
Location: New England and loving it!
Jun 26, 2014 0:04:59 GMT
|
Post by michellegb on Jan 5, 2020 16:30:43 GMT
Since no one is suggesting that anyone should be able to kill a 7 month old child, that’s a red herring argument designed to deflect rather than discuss. I don’t think anyone else gets to decide what happens in my uterus. Period. No matter how sincere their beliefs. My body, my choice. Absolute end of discussion. Ask yourself why the “pro-life” right has so little concern for the lives of women. And until the “pro-life” right starts supporting programs that allow for all children born to have a decent life outside the womb - including immigrant and refugee children - the “we care about babies” argument is disingenuous in the extreme. People may be telling themselves they care about babies because it’s easier than admitting to themselves how they really feel, but actions carry a lot more weight than words. And the legislative actions and voting records of so-called pro-life Republicans are weighted heavily against any concern for the lives of those already born. People who are truly interested in reducing the number of abortions need to direct their efforts towards making effective birth control available to every woman, sex ed in schools that actually teaches about sex (not abstinence only), and making sure that no pregnant woman has to worry about whether she’s going to be able to afford food, medical care and decent housing for her child. Or whether it could end up in a cage. I cannot like this enough. Well said. I am amazed that at the point of conception, a woman becomes nothing more than a vessel, an incubator or a feed machine and that is perfectly fine. Remove the rights of one to give rights to another - regardless of any medical issues or violent conception against the woman's will. I cannot wrap my head around how some people can justify this. We are moving back in time at an alarming pace. The US is a scary place right now. |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 20, 2024 21:18:22 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 5, 2020 16:34:09 GMT
There is no question a lot of white folks are becoming uneasy about the fact this country is on its way of losing its white majority.
But the fight against women having a choice goes back long before the reality of this country no longer being a white majority country dawned on white folks.
|
|
pinklady
Drama Llama
Posts: 5,542
|
Post by pinklady on Jan 5, 2020 16:37:00 GMT
Just an observation. Not saying either side or issue is right or wrong or where my beliefs fall. I find it interesting that when it comes to abortion, people remark that it has been the law of the land for FORTY years so get used to it. "If you don't want abortion, don't get one. But keep your hands off my reproductive rights. However gun ownership by the citizenry has been the law of the land for far longer and we need to get rid of it. But saying "if you don't want a gun, don't get one. But keep your hands off my gun rights" is considered outrageous. Whether the poster believes this or not, it’s this kind of fucking ignorance that proves we are doomed. |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 20, 2024 21:18:22 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 5, 2020 16:55:35 GMT
Are you seriously comparing the two legislation ? Surely not? No other person's life is affected by a woman choosing to have an abortion, except her own. What she chooses to do with her own body is entirely up to her. A gun in the wrong hands does and has affected other people's life at a devastating affect to a lot of families. I don't see anyone advocating getting rid of guns but campaigning to have effective legislation to protect the lives of others. It is outrageous that others are put at risk, a life saving risk, because of this gun loving " keep your hands off my gun rights" culture that exists in the US. Well, the baby’s life is pretty affected. If you don’t believe that a fetus is an innocent human, that is your opinion. But others disagree. I don’t know when life begins. I can see both sides of the argument. But for a lot of people, life unequivocally begins at conception and/or implantation. For those people, saving an innocent life is important. Would you (general you) do whatever you physically could to prevent a one-month-old from being killed? How far would you go? What would you do if there was a system in place where mothers could kill their babies 7 months after birth? Would you say that was between them, their doctor and their god? Would you fight to get the laws changed? For some people, that child 7 months prior to birth is just as important as the child 7 months after. Again, I don’t know the answers. But I do know that no one else does either. Everyone fights this fight based on what they believe. For the pro-life people I know, this isn’t about taking rights away from women. It’s about protecting rights for babies. It's a shame that they don't treat ALL life in the same way then isn't it? You can still have a personal opinion of abortion that would affect your ( general) decision without making that a condition for everyone else. But every other person does have the right to live and not be gunned down by anyone else.That isn't an opinion it is a fact. Or do those people's lives not matter to the religious zealots that thinks life begins at conception. |
|
