 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Roe v. Wade
|
|
|
Subject: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Lighter Date: 24 Jun 22 - 11:26 AM Completely overturned by SCOTUS a few minutes ago. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Bonzo3legs Date: 24 Jun 22 - 11:34 AM They are arseholes aren't they. Not a problem, women can still get an abortion in Canada!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Sandra in Sydney Date: 24 Jun 22 - 11:46 AM States move to ban abortion after US supreme court overturns Roe v Wade – live Landmark ruling was split on ideological lines, with six conservatives voting in favor and three liberals dissenting |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Bonzo3legs Date: 24 Jun 22 - 12:06 PM They can also come to UK - like the Irish girls do!!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Donuel Date: 24 Jun 22 - 12:17 PM the supream court has corrected previous decisions that were mistakes to begin with like the Dred Scott decision when Southerners demanded that Blacks be counted with whites. The Court clearly reflected the strength of the pro-slavery forces. The “Three-fifths Compromise” allowed a state to count three fifths of each Black person in determining political representation in the House. The decision on Roe Wade is a 5/4 decision and it is the first time a 'Right' has been erased by the Court. The approval rating of the Court is at an all time low of 24%. ( If you are as body language literate as I, take notice the only Supream Court Justice who can not naturally smile is Cavanaugh. All he can do is grimmace with exposed teeth.) I'm not saying if it means a thing except it looks super creepy. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: MaJoC the Filk Date: 24 Jun 22 - 01:02 PM Herself reads aloud the ticker about this on the BBC news coverage. "Welcome to the Republic of Gilead," says I. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: keberoxu Date: 24 Jun 22 - 01:06 PM I've got to the point where I actively avoid certain posts, on threads like this. To be fair, there are probably Mudcat members who treat posts from me the same way. Decisions like this one make history. But do things have to get this much worse before they get better? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Stilly River Sage Date: 24 Jun 22 - 01:08 PM Poor women can't travel to Canada or the UK for abortions, there may need to be an underground railroad bus system or something to take women to nearby states that still offer them. The pill method of abortion will probably grow considerably, as we see parcels shipped from innocuous senders, in "plain brown wrappers," and hope it works. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Lighter Date: 24 Jun 22 - 01:41 PM The "Three-fifths Compromise" was in the Constitution. It limited the Congressional power of the slave states. It had nothing to do with Dred Scott. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Stilly River Sage Date: 24 Jun 22 - 01:54 PM They were both vile circumstances brought about by rich white men landowners. Women in the US can carry a gun if they wish but according to the Supremes, they must carry a child if they find themselves so situated and live in the wrong state. Women are now second class citizens without bodily autonomy concerning one of the most important decisions they make in their lives. Gilead indeed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Donuel Date: 24 Jun 22 - 02:12 PM Lighter is 'righter' Missouri's Dred Scott Case, 1846-1857. In its 1857 decision that stunned the nation, the United States Supreme Court upheld slavery in United States territories, denied the legality of black citizenship in America, and declared the Missouri Compromise to be unconstitutional. Dred Scott confused in school too. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Donuel Date: 24 Jun 22 - 02:26 PM At any rate it looks like women are separate but not equal in conservative eyes. Title 9 is also in jeopardy along with contraception and states like Alabama pushing to make any kind of abortion a felony for the woman. Same sex marriage is in trouble again with this Trump Court. Perhaps the Trump judges lied a little when they told Congress that "if confirmed I will not overturn Roe..." 80 million people who did not vote (some I bet are women) bear some respondsibility for today's outcome. Some are the young and others are the old who say "I don't speak of religion or politics". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: MaJoC the Filk Date: 24 Jun 22 - 04:01 PM Herself (who is quite religious - convent educated): "Although strictly speaking abortion is a sin because it's taking an innocent life, sins can be forgiven; and there are some circumstances where, awful though abortion might be, it's the least worst option, and women should not be criminalised if they have to make this choice. Women in some circumstances will always seek abortions, and in these circumstances these should be legal and as safe as possible. Isn't it better to lose one life rather than two? I think it's very sad that this has got polarised like this, although it makes me cross when I see (generally speaking) middle-aged right-wing men, who will never be put in that position, telling women what they should do. It's set a precedent; where will it end? Welcome to Gilead, indeed." MaJoC's TL;DR : It should be hard, but it shouldn't be impossible. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: MaJoC the Filk Date: 24 Jun 22 - 04:04 PM .... and it'll hit the poorest hardest, as has been noted on the news coverage over here. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Steve Shaw Date: 24 Jun 22 - 04:19 PM "Although strictly speaking abortion is a sin because it's taking an innocent life..." Absolutely not so. If you believe in God you believe in sin. If you think that God is the omnipotent being, then just remember that one in four pregnancies is aborted by Mother Nature. Except that we prefer to use the term "miscarriage." That's another word that is intended to put the burden of guilt on women. "She miscarried..." If you have God, then he's responsible for hundreds of millions more miscarriages/abortions than all the women in history. Next time you hear someone excoriating a woman for having an abortion, just remember that. Especially if the man (yeah...) is invoking the name of the Lord... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Lighter Date: 24 Jun 22 - 05:35 PM To hear some people, you'd think the federal government had been forcing people to have abortions. If you believe abortion is a sin, no one was making you get one. BTW, Justice Thomas's opinion explicitly encourages litigation to overturn protections for sexual acts between consenting adults, gay marriage, and (not making this up) use of contraceptives. You'll also notice that, like abortion, women are not mentioned in the Constitution. So being one may be ruled unconstitutional in the first place. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Steve Shaw Date: 24 Jun 22 - 06:18 PM And it's a cast-iron bet, though I haven't checked, that the eminent triumphalist anti-abortionists who are currently crowing aloud are the self-same people who support the death penalty and who support the right to bear the arms that kill tens of thousands of Americans every year. So much for pro-life, eh? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Donuel Date: 24 Jun 22 - 07:35 PM The pro lifers have 26 States with 'TRIGGER LAWS' that will immediately make abortions illegal and criminalize various participants regarding abortion. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Bonzo3legs Date: 25 Jun 22 - 02:34 AM At Glastonbury, Phoebe Bridgers, the American singer-songwriter, led chants of “Fuck the Supreme Court” after saying she had been having “the shittiest time”. She asked if any Americans were in the audience, which drew boos from the crowd, then added: “Who wants to say, ‘Fuck the supreme court’? One, two, three…” “Fuck that shit. Fuck America and all these irrelevant old motherfuckers trying to tell us what to do with our fucking bodies. Fuck it.” |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Steve Shaw Date: 25 Jun 22 - 06:24 AM Good for her. I caught a bit of that. Though the thing is we need the good people in America to fight to overturn this. So "fuck America" doesn't really cut it for me. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Bonzo3legs Date: 25 Jun 22 - 06:31 AM The supreme court has done what it has never done before: expressly take away a constitutional right that is so fundamental to so many Americans that had already been recognized. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Steve Shaw Date: 25 Jun 22 - 06:38 AM From the BBC: Billie Eilish has used her Glastonbury headline set to protest the US Supreme Court's decision to end the constitutional right to abortion. "Today is a really, really dark day for women in the US," the 20-year-old said from the Pyramid Stage. "I'm just going to say that because I can't bear to think about it any longer." She went on to dedicate Your Power, a song about older men who abuse their position, to everyone affected. And she's bloody good, isn't she? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: PHJim Date: 25 Jun 22 - 07:11 AM Lighter said: "BTW, Justice Thomas's opinion explicitly encourages litigation to overturn protections for sexual acts between consenting adults, gay marriage, and (not making this up) use of contraceptives." ********************************************************************* Interracial marriage in the United States has been fully legal in all U.S. states since the 1967 Supreme Court decision that deemed anti-miscegenation state laws unconstitutional (via the 14th Amendment adopted in 1868) with many states choosing to legalize interracial marriage at much earlier dates. This falls into the same category as these other proposed litigations and if it were overturned, would make Justice Thomas's marriage illegal. He's a bit of a hypocrite, don't you think? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 25 Jun 22 - 08:14 AM Is there any country in the world where there is a constitutional right to abortion? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Bonzo3legs Date: 25 Jun 22 - 08:49 AM Is there any country in the world where there is a constitutional right to own a gun? Ah yes, the usa!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Jeri Date: 25 Jun 22 - 09:51 AM The long range result of this is that we always respected the Supreme Court for being apolitical. I think we don't respect them any longer. I think it's significant that there aren't many (any?) psycho gun nuts on the left. I imagine if there were, things might be different. I also hope that doctors ignore the SCOTUS, and Congress amend the Constitution to make control of one's body and what grows in it constitutional right. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Lighter Date: 25 Jun 22 - 11:28 AM To amend the Constitution, 2/3 of both Houses of Congress must vote for the amendment (won't happen soon). Then it must be ratified by 3/4 of the states (ditto). On average, it takes four years to ratify an Amendment. Like the other rights that Thomas wants srutinized, Roe v. Wade is based on the 14th Amendment. It's been sustained by courts about a dozen times, notably by the Supreme Court in 1989. Now yesterday's decision states that the reasoning behind Roe was "weak," and all the judges and who upheld it (appointed by Democratic and Republican Presidents) were essentially fools. The decision also says that the 1973 decision "divided America." Presumably unlike this one. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Bonzo3legs Date: 25 Jun 22 - 12:20 PM There will be back street abortion clinics all over the usa - you mark my words!!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Jeri Date: 25 Jun 22 - 12:26 PM First, there will be busses. Map of states where abortion is legal/illegal. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 25 Jun 22 - 12:32 PM Relevant part of 14th Amendment: No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Donuel Date: 25 Jun 22 - 05:23 PM Rectifying the Court will be more accepted as time goes by. How it can be done: Stacking a 12 judge court. Impeaching one or two like Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett. https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/03/30/impeach-supreme-court-justice-clarence-thomas-00021480 Then there is nature's imperative. Besides,Clarence doesn't look well. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 25 Jun 22 - 05:32 PM Wouldn’t it be better to accept that it's not a matter of constitutional rights, but of legislation, as in all other countries? Either at state or federal level. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Bonzo3legs Date: 25 Jun 22 - 05:49 PM Forced birth in a country with no universal healthcare, no universal childcare, no paid family and medical leave, one of the highest rates of maternal mortality among rich nations. This isn’t about “life”. It’s about control. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Donuel Date: 25 Jun 22 - 08:47 PM Never had the votes McGrath. Extreme control bonz The Court ALSO weakened Miranda rights you know "You have the right to remain silent..." Well by a 6 to 3 decision the court made it less than a suggestion and impossible to sue law enforcement if not mirandized. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Ebbie Date: 26 Jun 22 - 01:18 AM In my opinion every state and community that bans abortion should IMMEDIATELY pass a law that requires the male who sired the pregnancy to take on the financial support, under penalty of law, of the child-to-be. Until the child is aged 18. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Bonzo3legs Date: 26 Jun 22 - 02:06 AM Who are these bible bashing pricks who made this decision anyway?? Is there nothing Biden can do?? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 26 Jun 22 - 07:30 AM It should clearly be the legal responsibility of both parents to support their children. Isn't that already legally required in the USA? Making sure that such laws are effectively applied, and that all children do get the support they need is self-evidently a paramount obligation on any government, especially where the parents do not or cannot provide it. That doesn't appear to be the case in most countries. And changing that seems to be only a peripheral issue for too many political activists. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: MaJoC the Filk Date: 26 Jun 22 - 01:35 PM Comment made on British TV: The Supreme Court judges must be very brave, to make that decision in a country where women can carry guns. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Donuel Date: 26 Jun 22 - 06:18 PM One small step for ass holes one giant leap for misogynists. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Donuel Date: 27 Jun 22 - 06:55 AM Life begins at conception is a religion for those who use the issue for conservatives. Which came first, the woman or the egg? It is a big lie that a sperm has nothing to do with it. Historicly life begins at perception or a live birth. Clarence Thomas warns that contraception is next on the chopping block. Will that include vasectomies and condoms? There is alot of dishonerty in this debate. sorry. Its not a debate anymore, its a crime. The Court decision will leave women dead while men go on their merry way. Women die from unsafe abortions. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 27 Jun 22 - 10:46 AM Clearly life does begin at conception. The question is at what stage does that that life get given the status of a human being. That is essentially a cultural and political decision, not a scientific one. Historically different societies have held to a range of alternatives in between the point of conception and the time of birth. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Donuel Date: 27 Jun 22 - 10:55 AM Some say the age of reason begins at 13. Brain wiring is mostly complete at 21. The age of gun ownership ranges from 11 up.The age of gun purchase is 18. The age of wisdom is rarely achieved as demonstrated by the Supream Court. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Steve Shaw Date: 27 Jun 22 - 11:35 AM Life began (we think) in nutrient-rich water about 3.5 billion years ago and has been continuous, burgeoning and evolving ever since. The "life begins" argument, laden with the requisite dose of emotion according to who's making it, is bogus. Sperms and eggs are every bit as alive as an embryo, a foetus or a fully-grown human. From what I've heard coming out of America in the last few days, it isn't pointless arguments about "when life begins" that are at the core of the issue. Rather, it's the siren voices of particular people who like to call themselves "Christians" who harbour the cruellest of cruel notions about women. When those people's time comes, the Jesus who they love to invoke is certain to refuse them admission. Sadly, that means they'll never be punished. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Lighter Date: 27 Jun 22 - 12:10 PM A male lawgiver was being interviewed on cable a couple of weeks ago. He asserted that life begins at fertilization. The female interviewer then asked if implantation wouldn't be a more reasonable moment for the beginning of life. There was an embarrassing silence while his eyes shifted back and forth. The man clearly didn't know what she was talking about. Then he answered some imaginary, vaguely related question. "Dismaying" would be an understatement. BTW, pro-lifers have recently started to employ the phrase, "The science says," as in "The science says that life begins at conception" and "The science says that women have died from taking [FDA-approved] abortion pills." Of course, it's a phrase that's commonly used by physicians and public-health officials when debunking claims that covid vaccines don't work. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Steve Shaw Date: 27 Jun 22 - 01:39 PM Try telling them that the science says there probably isn't a God. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Stilly River Sage Date: 27 Jun 22 - 04:24 PM THE science - something they feel the need to appropriate (and misrepresent). One thing only, as if science wasn't a large and complicated field. GOP and religious zealots make it up as they go along. There's a painkiller ad I hear on TV frequently, one I'm not tempted to try, but they have two or three older white men seated at a table in white lab coats (we are to assume they are physicians instead of actors) answer a question about pain killers. The line they use is "based upon clinical studies" they recommend X. The company probably couldn't produce any science, but they make that broad statement as if there is evidence. Weasel words. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Bonzo3legs Date: 27 Jun 22 - 04:52 PM Paracetamol does me !! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 27 Jun 22 - 05:36 PM "Based upon clinical studies" is really a more valid thing to say than "the science says". Though without further information it's just as vacuous. Cells are of course alive, but a cell is never going to develop into a human being. That requires a fertilised ovum. There's nothing in anyway controversial about saying that a life provisionally starts at conception. Where differences can arise is about the stage of development at which it should be regarded as entitled to continue developing. That's a matter of culture and politics rather than science. (Religious views being one aspect of the culture.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Steve Shaw Date: 27 Jun 22 - 07:25 PM And round and round we go. "Life starts at..." (finish in your own way, shout it to the world then realise that there is no answer and that it's a pointless road to take). The problem with this whole argument is that many people are anti-abortion but no-one is actually pro-abortion, in the sense that no-one advocates it enthusiastically as a lifestyle choice. No-one thinks that it's a great idea. No-one views it airily as a consequence-free pastime. Pro-life is a bogus concept. People claiming to be pro-life really mean that they are anti-abortion. Many of them are anti-abortion but pro-gun and pro-death penalty. They are not pro-life. A great starting point would be to agree that abortion is a poor outcome in every case. Then we can ask what we can do about it. Why would someone get pregnant then want to get un-pregnant? Men, women, boys and girls have the right to be educated about love, sex, relationships, self-esteem and respect for others. I'm not talking about abject sex-ed lessons with condoms rolled on bananas and diagrams in books, lessons given by the school nurse or the embarrassed biology teacher overseen by the priest (yes, really!). We are failing badly if boys can somehow make girls feel that they have to have sex. We are decades behind the curve in all these things because we allow pornography to exist and make it easy for ten-year-olds to access it. Pornography that portrays twisted attitudes to sex and which is designed to stop you thinking and start you lasciviating, which confuses sex that should come with love with sex that comes with power, with dominance and submission, with perversion. Because we've allowed this to happen it's become very difficult to see how we can fight it. My cloud-cuckoo land is one in which there is no pornography, in which all parents and teachers are expected to show responsibility for nurturing young people's attitudes to relationships, which provides free and unlimited contraception along with advice as to how to use it. Society would strive for equality and to eliminate sexist attitudes. Abortion should be freely available on demand, no time limits (they are bogus: vanishingly few abortions are sought by the third trimester, and that would go down to nothing given good education of the kind we are currently scared to provide). In my cloud-cuckoo land, abortions would hardly be needed at all. I like barbs, so I'd just say that what we need like a hole in the head are priests, imams and rabbis telling us that our thoughts are impure and that Jesus (or equivalent) is watching us if we do anything to ourselves or each other six inches below the neckline and a foot above the kneeline. That abstinence is a Good Thing that will make us holy. That sex is for marriage only. I was told at school that I must gaze upwards and say a prayer to the Virgin Mary whenever I was soaping up my private parts (their words: my 15-year-old self didn't know what they were talking about). I might have had fun avoiding that advice but I'm too old to remember... ;-) Like everything else, it's all about edukashun... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Donuel Date: 27 Jun 22 - 08:09 PM The meaning of life...The size of the universe...Life begins at...By eating the body and drinking the blood, religion will save your everlasting soul...Answer these questions correctly and they will not burn you at the stake for being a heretic. But get even one wrong... Religious extremism holds a 29% majority. You may have noticed 29% isn't even a plurality but thats The Court and religion for ya. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Steve Shaw Date: 27 Jun 22 - 08:17 PM By the way: "...but a cell is never going to develop into a human being." A cell developed into Dolly the sheep... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Lighter Date: 27 Jun 22 - 09:22 PM There's simply no objective test for when human life "actually" begins, so people will believe what they want. As long as laws are based on opinions about the beginning of life, there will never be a widely agreed-upon resolution. Every woman should have control over her own body - just as we men have. 14th Amendment: equal protection under the law for all persons in the U.S. Neil Gorsuch said during his confirmation hearing (and I quote) "A fetus is not a person." I asked an elderly lady if women discussed legalizing abortion much before Roe. She said it wasn't even a topic in the '40s and '50s and definitely not a movement. Until Roe, she'd never given it a thought. If a women got an illegal abortion, she'd never speak of it. But in retrospect, she said women's automatic acceptance of "the way things were" now seems unimaginable. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: The Sandman Date: 28 Jun 22 - 03:20 AM Bonzo Biden is a Catholic, he may be influenced by his church he is unlikely to do anything. what a country, people are free to go around shooting each other willy nilly. yet if a woman is raped she cannot have an abortion |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Steve Shaw Date: 28 Jun 22 - 05:19 AM "There's simply no objective test for when human life "actually" begins, so people will believe what they want. As long as laws are based on opinions about the beginning of life, there will never be a widely agreed-upon resolution." Exactly. Not only is seeking a definition that would please all an utterly fruitless pursuit, it actually gets in the way and absorbs far too much of our energy. If we want to talk about how we should value life, perhaps we should include discussion of the death penalty, liberal gun laws and why we napalm civilian villages and shell shopping malls. The persistent focus on how we must control what belongs to women only, their bodies, has a distinct ring of misogyny about it. That's part of a bigger, more general sickness in society. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Stanron Date: 28 Jun 22 - 06:29 AM Has anyone here come across the idea that we are all immortal spiritual beings trapped on a prison world in biological bodies that are designed to die before we get smart enough to find a way to escape? If it were so then this decision could be seen as a way of enforcing the chains that bind us. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: MaJoC the Filk Date: 28 Jun 22 - 02:05 PM Time for a nice little grenade .... .... I find it increasingly difficult to distinguish between the louder pro-lifers and the Taliban. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Neil D Date: 28 Jun 22 - 07:23 PM McGrath was right when he said: Wouldn’t it be better to accept that it's not a matter of constitutional rights, but of legislation, as in all other countries? Either at state or federal level. Donuel was equally correct when he said we never had the votes. This should be the Dems single unified message leading up to the midterms: Protest all you want, but if you give us enough votes we can codify legal abortion into law and do an end around on the Supremes. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Bonzo3legs Date: 29 Jun 22 - 01:44 AM Surely Martha & The Vandellas!!!!!!!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Steve Shaw Date: 29 Jun 22 - 03:14 AM An extract from this morning's letter from the Guardian to its subscribers about possible ramifications arising from the Supreme Court's decision. I don't think it's over the top. Dear Steve, The news had been leaked, digested and lamented weeks ago - but it still came as a shock. Friday’s decision by the US Supreme Court to remove a woman’s right to an abortion is perhaps the most stunning to emerge from the institution since the second world war. It’s made for an extremely busy time for our US team, who have investigated the impact for maternal mortality, mapped ‘abortion deserts', explored the influence of Christian nationalists over the US courts, and informed readers how they can help. “It’s really hard to overstate the significance of a decision like this and it’s really almost without parallel in terms of Supreme Court decisions,” the Guardian’s US health reporter Jessica Glenza told our daily podcast show Today in Focus. “Outside of prohibition it’s hard to think of another case where (so many) people’s rights have disappeared overnight.” But the work for our journalists doesn’t stop here. In a sense, it’s only just begun, because the ramifications of Friday’s decision to strike down Roe v Wade run far and wide. “In the coming weeks and months, we will seek to answer the many questions raised when the court scrapped nearly 50 years of settled law,” Jessica told me. “How will women's physical, emotional and financial wellbeing fare in a nation with a maternal mortality crisis, sky-high health costs and a tattered social safety net? Will clinics in states that protect abortion see a surge of out-of-state patients? Will doctors flee states hostile to abortion, fearing prosecution?” “Then, we will look at fights between states. Will anti-abortion politicians seek to ban patients from crossing state lines? Will calls from anti-abortion campaigners to prosecute women grow? Will friends and family members be branded "accomplices"? And will technology companies safeguard privacy when prosecutions loom? Finally, how will these seismic changes alter the upcoming US election?” And it’s not just our US teams who are scrambling to cover all the angles. The decision is expected to ripple out globally because of the towering US influence over reproductive rights around the world. Guardian reporters from southeast Asia to east Africa are investigating the upshot for local attitudes and laws governing abortion. The short answer is: not good. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Senoufou Date: 29 Jun 22 - 03:38 AM I have never in my life been pregnant, but I remember many years ago that 'backstreet abortions' caused no end of dangerous repercussions for women (sepsis, haemorrhage, irreparable damage to the reproductive organs etc). I fear this may all happen again if legal abortions are forbidden. Much better that these are undertaken with the correct medical procedure. I also think that any woman has the right to decide what is done to her own body, not any government or man who has different ideas. People are entitled to their religious tenets, but shouldn't impose them on others. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Backwoodsman Date: 29 Jun 22 - 04:16 AM I was told that some States are starting to withdraw cancer treatment for pre-menopausal women because they fear that damage to any fœtus which may be present could render them liable to prosecution. Does anyone know if this is true? Has the US gone completely insane? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Bonzo3legs Date: 29 Jun 22 - 08:08 AM Just a handful if usaians, religious cranks and gold medal arseholes. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Donuel Date: 29 Jun 22 - 08:23 AM Emporous old time religionists can remove half the population from competition by making women their foe and putting them in their place. Barefoot and pregnant is not enough. Keeping them in the kitchen and bedroom is not enough. One has to make women criminally liable to oppress them at will. It is not insane, it is merely a means to an end. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Steve Shaw Date: 29 Jun 22 - 11:16 AM I'm probably in breach of protocol by quoting across threads, but henryp dug this up from 2007, in the current thread up there about abortion songs. "Vin Garbutt passionately opposes abortion. He writes songs, Little Innocents and The Secret being well known among them, driven by that position. I disagree fundamentally with him. But my support for women's rights on abortion is not quite so strong as my belief in free speech. Colin Randall July 23, 2007" I heard Vin singing these songs in our folk club. I didn't like it, but he wasn't breaking the law. I do think that there are some facets of the exercise of "free speech" apropos of expressing anti-abortionist views that need closer examination. First, soi-disant "pro-lifers" are often/usually steeped in certainty. You are a murderer. You destroyed an innocent life. You will be judged by God. You must come back to Jesus. Innocent life, innocent life, innocent life. Destroy the clinics. Picket the abortion doctors and the women who go to the clinics. Abortion must be banned. ("must...") Well all that comes under free speech. But all of it is predicated on opinion only. Expressed certainty predicated on opinion only is a very dangerous way to go. Every religious war, every punishment for heresy, every bit of misogyny, every justification of the slave trade put forward by organised religion is predicated on certainty which can't be justified. The upshots of that include 9-11, suicide bombers killing children at pop concerts, the mass repression of women, the Taliban and Islamic State. Boris Johnson and Trump lie, but it's OK because that's free speech. We say that free speech is good, hate speech is bad, but it seems to me that we can't draw the line between them in the right place. Mother Teresa, an evil woman if ever there was one, told a crowd that abortion was the greatest destroyer of world peace. Free speech? Wars are always started by men, but she attacks as the main destroyer of world peace strictly women only. It's not free speech. It's hate speech. If you're intimidating women and doctors outside clinics with your slogan-shouting and your placards, that is hate speech. You're expressing your opinion as your certainty and that can't be right, not outside those clinics. The lack of measured, moderate comment from militant anti-abortionists is rife. They can't just say, "I think you're wrong even though you think you're right, and this is why. You get on with your life the way you want to, I'll hold my nose and I'll put my arguments, I won't stop talking about this, but only because I recognise that neither of us can be certain who's right or wrong." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Dave the Gnome Date: 29 Jun 22 - 11:31 AM My Mrs was a trained counsellor, long retired, for the organisation 'Life' but always shied away from the militant 'SPUC' and the more militant factions within Life itself. Her view was that counselling (usualy young) women on the various options open to them if they found themselves pregnant in difficult circumstances was much better than letting them manage on their own. Knowing my Mrs, as I have for over 50 years, I know her advice would be completely impartial and non-judgmental. She is a genius at empathy and can relate to what people are going through without being patronising or pushy. I am more than sure all her ex clients made the right decision for their own individual circumstances and made it themselves with no interferance. She is absolutely disgusted at the ruling from across the pond. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Lighter Date: 29 Jun 22 - 12:10 PM Steve, speaking from deep in a "red state," I assure you there's nothing over the top in that clipping. In Texas, where you can be awarded $10,000 for successfully suing anyone who's assisted a woman to get an abortion (including the taxi driver), they're talking very seriously about making it a crime to travel out of state to get one. In Missouri, the police now have the right to search your home for evidence that a miscarriage was actually an abortion. The only ray of light is that choice is still legal in half the states, including New York, California, and Illinois. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Stilly River Sage Date: 29 Jun 22 - 12:20 PM MaJoC the Filk I've been using that Taliban comparison for a long time. That's exactly the roll this zealots are occupying in American society. And yesterday one of the brain-dead GOP representatives from Colorado (Boebert) announced that she was "sick of this church and state stuff" already - that the "government is supposed to do what the church says, and not the other way round." She clearly missed the Civics and Government classes when she was in school. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Lighter Date: 29 Jun 22 - 03:50 PM What Boebert actually said was slightly worse: "The Church is supposed to run the Government." She also said she was "tired of this separation of church and state junk" and that it's not mentioned in the Constitution but only in somebody's "stinking letter." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: gillymor Date: 29 Jun 22 - 04:31 PM This from Jane Fonda- "If a corporation can be defined as a person, why not redefine vaginas as AK47s, that way they'd be free of governmental restrictions by those who care about 'the sanctity of life.'" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Donuel Date: 29 Jun 22 - 04:41 PM Stilly, the proper progressive term for white nationalists is the 'American' Taliban. :^\ Actually the term came from Aron Sorkin's 'Network News' in 2011 — the project/show, is set at a 24-hour cable news network. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Donuel Date: 29 Jun 22 - 06:25 PM Jane Fonda coincidentally was cast as the owner of Network News. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Donuel Date: 01 Jul 22 - 09:28 AM The Supreme Court is reintroducing everything judge Scalia held dear such as God being in charge of Government. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Bonzo3legs Date: 02 Jul 22 - 02:15 AM Don't forget that all in supreme court play with their willies and fannies in the bath!!!!!!!!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Steve Shaw Date: 02 Jul 22 - 10:47 AM I posted this in the wrong thread, so here it is where it was intended. I apologise for my mistaken comment that Bonzo's post was deleted: It's a shame that Bonzo's post about how doggedly human the Supreme Court judges are by referring (in his own sweet way, of course) to their likely shenanigans in their bathtubs, because it had exactly that grain of truth about how their loftiness is false. It reminded me, though admittedly tangentially only, of a piece written by Nicholas Humphrey in 1982, reflecting on Nye Bevan's remark about "not wanting to go naked into the conference chamber." Yertis (as we say in Pastyland): In 1957 at the Labour Party's debate on disarmament, Aneurin Bevan declared that he was not prepared to 'go naked into the conference chamber'. It is a phrase which has been echoed by Tory and Labour defence spokesmen alike; something similar was said at the Liberal Party conference in September 1981. But what was it that Bevan had to hide? Bevan came into the world naked, and naked he left it. Why should he have been afraid to go naked into the conference chamber to discuss matters of global life and death ? What he had to hide, as much from himself as from his adversaries, was nothing less than his humanity. Of course, by the rules of the game he had to hide it. For no naked human being, conscious of his own essential ordinariness, the chairseat pressing against his buttocks, his toes wriggling beneath the conference table, his penis hanging limply a few feet from Mr Andropov's, could possibly play the game of international politics and barter like a god with the lives of millions of his fellow men. No naked human being could threaten to press the nuclear button. So I come to my proposal. Our leaders must be given no choice but to go naked into the conference chamber. At the United Nations General Assembly, at the Geneva disarmament negotiations, at the next summit in Moscow or in Washington, there shall be a notice pinned to the door: 'Reality gate. Human beings only beyond this point. NO CLOTHES.' And then, as the erstwhile iron maiden takes her place beside the erstwhile bionic commissar, it may dawn on them that neither she nor he is made of iron or steel, but rather of a warmer, softer and much more magical material, flesh and blood. Perhaps as Mr Andropov looks at his navel and realises that he, like the rest of us, was once joined from there to a proud and aching mother, as Mrs Thatcher feels the table-cloth tickling her belly, they will start to laugh at their pretensions to be superhuman rulers of the lives of others. If they do not actually make love they will, at least, barely be capable of making war. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Lighter Date: 02 Jul 22 - 12:02 PM If God were really in charge of the Court, I believe he'd cut us a better deal than what we're getting. Also, naked crazies are still crazies. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Stilly River Sage Date: 03 Jul 22 - 04:34 PM It's time to stack the court. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Steve Shaw Date: 03 Jul 22 - 06:23 PM "10-year-old rape victim forced to travel from Ohio to Indiana for abortion" Guardian headline. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Lighter Date: 03 Jul 22 - 06:32 PM The governor of South Dakota (where abortions are now allowed only to save the life the mother - relatively progressive) was asked about this today. She said it was terrible. Things like this shouldn't happen. It's a nightmare for the girl and her family. She hopes the girl will receive care and counseling. So sad. She said once that she'd like to see DJT's face on Mount Rushmore. That hasn't changed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Nigel Parsons Date: 03 Jul 22 - 06:45 PM The quoted story 10-year-old rape victim forced to travel from Ohio to Indiana for abortion |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Donuel Date: 11 Jul 22 - 12:56 PM In four feet of water your decision to row versus wade is a no brainer. Having to decide what to do with your own body should be a right and a freedom. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Stilly River Sage Date: 11 Jul 22 - 01:30 PM Bickering has been removed - both of you - ignore the stuff you don't like, don't pick it up as a personal challenge. Biden is in a tough situation now. As long as Sinema and Manchin refuse to lift the fillibuster nothing can be done about anything. The voting rights bill needs to be passed to remove all of the hinky stuff going on in red states to disenfranchise voters. And they could make a federal law allowing abortion. Biden can't do any of that on his own. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Steve Shaw Date: 11 Jul 22 - 07:07 PM What's that, Maggie? The thread has been dormant for days... ? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Donuel Date: 11 Jul 22 - 08:06 PM This Court is imposing right wing Christian theosophy on all of America. Separation of church and state is not a myth as claimed by this cabal of christians. The court is not pushing us back to the 50's. They are pushing it back before 1776. I have a digital copy of a George Washington letter decrying the ardent push against separation of church and state by Christians that he called the trouble makers. Today they call themselves 'White' Christian Nationalists. Chief Justice Roberts has ruled in favor of these right wing christian nationalists 83% of the time. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Lighter Date: 11 Jul 22 - 09:49 PM The Court - well, some of it - wants us to believe that if a right isn't specifically spelled out in the Constitution, you don't have it if your state legislature or Congress doesn't say you do. So rights have to be listed. Like crimes are now. (Sarcasm alert.) That's what freedom is all about! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: The Sandman Date: 12 Jul 22 - 03:24 AM wqs this a trump legacy? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Donuel Date: 12 Jul 22 - 08:01 AM Next we will get a Bill for Rights. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Donuel Date: 12 Jul 22 - 09:01 AM ...something like taxes. Google hands over word searchs and location data whenever law enforcement asks. For states that make abortion a crime, Google will become complicit in arrests and convictions. Until Congress can address this issue what is considered 'overly broad searchs' will be an unanswered question. Settling each different state law sounds like Infinity Wars; If a fetus is a person can a single pregnant woman drive in the restricted HOV lane meant for 2 or more people only? Can you arrest a pregnant woman if the 'other person is innocent'. If a fetus is a person what is their income? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: gillymor Date: 12 Jul 22 - 09:17 AM Here's a link to a story regarding the pregnant lady in the HOV lane, one of many you didn't link to- CNN |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Lighter Date: 12 Jul 22 - 10:12 AM Trump legacy? You bet. He appointed three ultraconservative justices to replace three liberal to moderate justices, giving the right a 5-4 majority whenever they want to exercise it. It's unusual for three openings to appear in one four-year presidential term. Many Trumpies see this as divine intervention - like Trump's election against 50-1 odds when he declared his candidacy. Supreme Court appointments are for life. Factoid: Trump would have appointed three Stalinists if he had thought they'd increase his popularity among his mesmerized voters. And probably his senatorial slaves would have confirmed them. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Stilly River Sage Date: 12 Jul 22 - 10:15 AM There is a federal law on the books from 1986, the EMTALA act (Emergency Medical Treatment & Labor Act (EMTALA)) In 1986, Congress enacted the Emergency Medical Treatment & Labor Act (EMTALA) to ensure public access to emergency services regardless of ability to pay. Section 1867 of the Social Security Act imposes specific obligations on Medicare-participating hospitals that offer emergency services to provide a medical screening examination (MSE) when a request is made for examination or treatment for an emergency medical condition (EMC), including active labor, regardless of an individual's ability to pay. Hospitals are then required to provide stabilizing treatment for patients with EMCs. If a hospital is unable to stabilize a patient within its capability, or if the patient requests, an appropriate transfer should be implemented. The law includes shielding doctors from prosecution if they perform an abortion to save the life of the mother. Federal law trumps state law in every case. TikTok video about it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Donuel Date: 13 Jul 22 - 09:46 AM A lifetime of service is not mandated by the constitution so it can be changed just like the number of judges. Making those changes won't be called a nuclear option, that already taken by a made up rule controversy called the filibuster. Its more like a wormhole option but no one has ever seen a wormhole so change is unlikely. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: MaJoC the Filk Date: 13 Jul 22 - 10:18 AM > A lifetime of service is not mandated by the constitution Trouble is, a tradition left to dry for long enough sets harder than rock, and certainly harder than law. I can still remember the kerfuffle in the Church of England over replacing the Book of Common Prayer by Series Two ("we've done it this way since 1662"), and there's still grumbles half a century later. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Donuel Date: 13 Jul 22 - 04:25 PM You I understand. I was beginning to wonder about the usual suspects losing their marbles and 8 balls. Abortion, guns and losing democracy are trending in the polls as never before. The predicted right wing glandslide may not happen afterall. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Helen Date: 15 Jul 22 - 03:47 PM Interesting analytical article: Why is America so divided on abortion? Because a key conservative player planned it that way "The religious right was made in the battle over access to abortion rights, but now experts believe there is a much broader war being waged and other personal freedoms, as well as American democracy, are all on the line." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Helen Date: 15 Jul 22 - 04:43 PM I just realised that a situation filmed for a news item about Donald Trump, which never made much sense to me, has possibly been explained by that article. When Trumpty-Dumpty was still the President he was filmed in the Oval Office (from memory) surrounded by evangelical Christians who were praying with (or over?) him. It seemed odd to me because I had never heard him refer to Christianity or religious beliefs in any of his speeches up to that time. It also just occurred to me that that may have been the day he took the photo opportunity, holding the Bible in front of a church. The introductory paragraphs of the article are: "There was a time in the United States when abortion wasn't so political, but one conservative Christian man believed it could be. "To him, the reproductive rights of women presented an opportunity. He dreamed of building a coalition — a powerful voting bloc that would help pull the Republican Party to the right." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Lighter Date: 16 Jul 22 - 11:35 AM As I recall, the evangelicals were praying with him (assuming he was praying at all) and "laying on hands." It was long before the bit with the bible, which happened after the George Floyd killing. While the Antchrist (not a typo) was running in 2015, he was asked if he ever asked God for forgiveness. His answer was that he was a "good person" and didn't have to. One of his first YouTube ads had him showing off his family bible, "given to me by my mother." He pointed to his name written with those of other Trump's on the flyleaf. "It means so much to me." A little later he suggested that the IRS was auditing his tax returns "because I'm such a strong Christian." Then he spoke at Liberty University and read one line from what he called "Two Corinthians." When asked by CBN reporters whether he preferred the Old or New Testament, he thought about it and replied, "Probably equal." They asked if he had a favorite bible verse, and he said he didn't want to "get into specifics" because it was "very personal" and the bible was "incredible" and "very special." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Stilly River Sage Date: 16 Jul 22 - 03:30 PM If a woman is not ready to have a child, she shouldn't have to have a child. If a child is carrying a child after she has been raped by a man, she shouldn't have to have a child. End. Of. Story. The most succinct version. The whole "people with uteruses" stuff makes it more complicated but they shouldn't have to have children if they don't want to either, whatever they call themselves. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Lighter Date: 16 Jul 22 - 03:52 PM Now the Indiana Attorney-General has said he's going to investigate the doctor who did the operation. He said she has a history of failing to report abortions. CNN has looked into her public records and found all her paperwork in order. The doctor's lawyer has written letter to the AG asking him to cease and desist from "smearing" her client. There's really no bottom to this crap, is there? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Helen Date: 16 Jul 22 - 04:55 PM Lighter, thanks for the specific information about Trump. From those snippets it appears like he wasn't very specific about his Christian beliefs, IMHO. Like he had been coached to say Christian-sounding comments but couldn't delve deeper into them when questioned. At the time I had started watching ABC America news once a day and now the different Trump-related events have blurred together a bit in my memory. I do remember that the protesters were cleared from near the church to make room for his photo op, and they would have been Black Lives Matter protesters, I think. Maggie, I agree with you succinct statement. Yes, end of story. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Helen Date: 16 Jul 22 - 08:44 PM Sometimes political strategies, as referred to in the article I mentioned, can jump up and bite the people in power on the behind. It's a possibility that the women voters in the US might get as motivated as the Aussie women in our recent federal election. Our previous Prime Minister had a very strong vibe of denigrating and denying the issues relating to women (and climate change, indigenous rights, and lots of other issues but that's another story) and a strong proportion of women rose up and decided it was time to take action. A significant number of candidates in that election were women or men advocating women's rights and a good percentage of them were elected. Many of the candidates left the Liberal-National Coalition Party and were standing as independent candidates, so not only did the ex-PM lose voter credibility, but his political party did as well. The Labor Party won the election and as our new PM has stated, the LP has a strong history of collaborating effectively with other political parties and candidates. Hope is in the air, and already some in-roads have begun in some areas of politics and society. (Usual disclaimers, and even if I had been a long-time, staunch Liberal-National Party supporter, our ex-PM would have turned me off voting for them. Big time!) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Pete from seven stars link Date: 19 Jul 22 - 01:01 PM I remember trump saying he had no sins to confess , and I concluded then that he wasn’t a Christian . I’ve no idea if that remained the case throughout his presidency , but he was certainly a bull in a china shop sort of man . Either way , Wether he was genuinely pro life or just seeing it as a political tool, that was a successful policy that attracted votes at the time . It seems he delivered on this policy even though not in office anymore ! If I was an American , I would have voted for him too , as the lesser evil . It’s called democracy I believe |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: The Sandman Date: 19 Jul 22 - 01:11 PM Why should a woman who has been raped be forced to have a child? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Steve Shaw Date: 19 Jul 22 - 03:09 PM So you, as a man, think he delivered on a policy that shits on women but which you agree with, and that would have been enough for you to have voted for him. Never mind all the other very bad stuff that he did. Yes, that's democracy. Yes, that's the attitude that gives democracy a bad name. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Donuel Date: 20 Jul 22 - 08:11 AM In this post Roe decision era, the rate of permanent sterilization has increased by over 200%. I should have seen this contraception tubal ligation war coming. This will make judge Clarence Thomas go ballistic in his push to make contraception a crime. Vasectomies are only up by 110%. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Pete from seven stars link Date: 20 Jul 22 - 04:40 PM Rape is a hard one , but why should a baby pay for the transgression of the man . Pro abortion usually appeal to the hard cases , but usually they are pushing for abortion on demand . Some say a man shouldn’t have an opinion on a woman’s issue , but of course there’s other lives involved , and it’s hardly only men who speak out for the defenceless in the womb. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Steve Shaw Date: 20 Jul 22 - 04:56 PM Intolerant rubbish. As ever. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: gillymor Date: 21 Jul 22 - 07:47 PM Pete- " It’s called democracy I believe" Funny, Democracy is anathema to the would-be dictator you're touting. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Monique Date: 22 Jul 22 - 01:32 AM "the defenceless in the womb" whose life nobody cares about once out of the womb. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Lighter Date: 22 Jul 22 - 03:37 PM Oh, but they do care. As long as they don't have to spend a nickel out of their own pockets. On the other hand, they certainly don't care about the mother, because universal health care, as in Canada, is "communism" and "government interference in our lives." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Helen Date: 22 Jul 22 - 04:42 PM Yes, when the "defenceless life" becomes a mother her rights are not considered important. Are there any legal avenues being explored to stop men from putting women and girls into jeopardy by making them pregnant in the first place? Sorry, that's not really a serious question, a) because the abortion problem is viewed as one created by women and girls, b) because the majority of people in the position of power to create the legislation are men and not women, and c) maybe some men think it's a God-given right to impregnate women/girls as and when they choose regardless of the consequences on the women/girls. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Bonzo3legs Date: 22 Jul 22 - 04:55 PM and maybe some women can't wait to drop their knickers - be realistic!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Monique Date: 23 Jul 22 - 12:57 PM "Oh, but they do care. / As long as they don't have to spend a nickel out of their own pockets." If it's only about saying "I care" or/and letting other people deal with the child once born, I don't really see the difference between that and "I don't care". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Steve Shaw Date: 23 Jul 22 - 01:54 PM It's easy enough to blame men/ blame women (both apparently suggested in recent posts). For me, the issue is one of education. In my misspent yoof we had (for example, and not the only one) the Catholic Church which actually opposed "sex education" (I'll come back to that), and such matters as family planning and contraception were completely off the radar, positively sinful. You didn't do it until you were wed, and even thinking about it was sinful. Every bit of advice, what there was of it, to teenagers went completely against human nature and human urges. So look where we are now. "Sex education" is way, way behind the curve. The internet is where you get your twisted information and your warped attitudes. Ten-year-olds have no problem accessing pornography. You learn that sex is your right and that love don't come into it. Love is replaced by exploitation. You learn that anything goes in any position you like and there's nothing you can't see in glorious technicolor. Schools (only some schools...) make valiant efforts to teach it right, but even with the best intentions they are pissing into the wind. Almost everyone is a sexual being, and sex in its many guises is the most natural thing in the world - yet school draft in "speakers" and "experts" to talk to kids about sex. I suppose it's an advance on the priests who "taught us sex" in "retreats" and on those special lessons from the school nurse... We can't win this battle unless every responsible adult in every school, and every responsible parent, accepts that they have a role. Any teacher who says that they "don't do sex because they do physics" should be sacked (or at least seriously retrained)! Every school worker, as part of their remit, should be showing children good, positive, respectful relationships with each other and between them and the children. Good sex can only happen within a mutually-respectful and fully-consensual relationship. That means in in the context of full knowledge and of strong self-respect, not just mutual respect. Contraception should be taught and should be freely available. We can set age limits and other rules if we like, but in my cloud-cuckoo land we wouldn't need them. It's an aspiration, but it's a nettle that has not been grasped. It's not about men with roving willies or horny women getting into bother. It's a deep-seated challenge for society that can't be confronted by finding somebody to blame. Get it right and abortion numbers will dwindle to near-nothing. In the meantime, abortion must be a freely-available option without time limits and delays. Campaigning against abortion must not be permitted within a mile of clinics. And whatever we do, we must keep the priest, nuns, imams and rabbis strictly out of it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Rain Dog Date: 23 Jul 22 - 02:11 PM "In the meantime, abortion must be a freely-available option without time limits and delays." I am not sure what you mean by "without time limits". Can you explain that further? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Steve Shaw Date: 23 Jul 22 - 02:38 PM Sure. We don't need limits set arbitrarily at 20, 22 or 24 weeks, etc., because almost no-one has abortions that late. Setting limits allows unsympathetic medics to deliberately cause delays and imposes a fake layer of morality over the issue. If you don't like abortion, campaigning to ban it is at least honest and consistent. Campaigning to lower time limits is an immoral tactic. Either you agree with abortion or you don't. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Donuel Date: 23 Jul 22 - 03:35 PM Sterilization involves removal of the fallopian tubes, not just tubal ligation. A fetus is not defenseless. They often kill mothers. I suppose a tumor is just as defenseless. I suppose a 10 year old can get a cesarian whether it kills her or not. Face it, ban abortion and you can eliminate or interupt the competition in the work space, in professional careers and in scientific discovery. Eliminate the women vote and you get rid of redressing the law for women. A terrorist act of implanting an eight pound object in a man would be considered assault or murder. I have several politicians in mind for this procedure. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Rain Dog Date: 23 Jul 22 - 05:42 PM I am still not sure what you mean exactly. Objecting to lowering limits is one thing, saying there should be no limits is another. Do you think abortions should be allowed at 40 weeks? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Steve Shaw Date: 23 Jul 22 - 05:53 PM I tried to tell you: hardly anyone has an abortion by 24 weeks. We don't need a time limit. Please look up the stats if you don't believe me. A time limit allows anti-abortion medics to delay decisions, thus forcing women to have babies that they don't want. I'm not OK with that, even if you are. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Doug Chadwick Date: 23 Jul 22 - 06:51 PM I find it interesting that, on a thread about a woman's right to control her body, around 60% of the posters seem to be men and they have 75% of the posts. DC |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Steve Shaw Date: 23 Jul 22 - 07:02 PM I think it comes down more to whose side you're on, Doug, especially if you don't patronise. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Bonzo3legs Date: 24 Jul 22 - 02:11 AM Lean on Jesus before he leans on you!!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Pete from seven stars link Date: 27 Jul 22 - 08:12 AM I agree with much of what Steve says ; in particular the internet distorting views on sexuality . Credit where it’s due ……. That’s about it though ! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Stilly River Sage Date: 27 Jul 22 - 11:00 AM Particularly disturbing, Doug, that Petex7 chooses to post. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Pete from seven stars link Date: 31 Jul 22 - 02:48 PM Doug was commenting on it being more men on here commenting on abortion , but so far as I know, Doug is also a man , and I don’t know what gender stilly is . Methinks also that there are more posts by men than women around here anyway , so apart from Doug thinking that a man can’t comment on abortion unless he approves of it !,it amounts to little more than a wish to silence dissenters . |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Doug Chadwick Date: 31 Jul 22 - 03:32 PM .... so apart from Doug thinking that a man can’t comment on abortion I didn't say that. I made an observation and I leave it to others to consider the significance. DC |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Bonzo3legs Date: 31 Jul 22 - 03:41 PM I thoroughly approve of abortion, absolutely necessary. I do NOT approve of arrogant finger waving individuals calling themselves "christians" who make up their own rules as they go along. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Helen Date: 02 Aug 22 - 09:17 PM US sues Idaho over abortion ban , citing 'necessary' medical treatment in certain cases being denied "The US Justice Department has filed a lawsuit that challenges Idaho's restrictive abortion law, arguing that it conflicts with a federal law requiring doctors to provide pregnant women medically necessary treatment that could include abortion." .... "Idaho Democratic Party Chair Lauren Necochea praised the Justice Department's lawsuit in a prepared statement, saying the state's Republican politicians would rather let a pregnancy kill a person than allow them to receive an abortion. "'Idaho's radical abortion ban gives health care providers an impossible choice: withhold medically necessary care or face prison time,' Ms Necochea said. "'In states where these bans have gone into effect, providers are waiting for medical conditions to worsen before assisting their pregnant patients, increasing the risk of sepsis and other life-threatening complications. This is immoral.' " |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: MaJoC the Filk Date: 03 Aug 22 - 03:29 AM [Point of order: this is factual input, not comment.] BBC red button: Georgia offers tax credits for embryos
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Steve Shaw Date: 03 Aug 22 - 03:30 AM Excellent news from Kansas. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: MaJoC the Filk Date: 03 Aug 22 - 03:37 AM > Excellent news from Kansas. I saw that too, on the previous red-button entry. Do you want to transcribe it, or shall I? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Ebbie Date: 03 Aug 22 - 05:04 AM MaJoC the Filk - PM Date: 03 Aug 22 - 03:29 AM Georgia residents can now claim embryos as dependents on their tax returns, after the state banned most abortions. Taxpayers filing from 20 July or after, when Georgia banned abortions after six weeks of pregnancy, can now receive up to $3000 in tax credits. Tax filers may be asked to provide documents proving that the embryo has a "detectable human heartbeat". ********************************** One problem is that lower income tax payers typically take the automatic deductions, it doesn't benefit them to itemize. Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Pete from seven stars link - PM Date: 20 Jul 22 - 04:40 PM Rape is a hard one, but why should a baby pay for the transgression of the man. Pro abortion usually appeal to the hard cases, but usually they are pushing for abortion on demand . Some say a man shouldn’t have an opinion on a woman’s issue , but of course there’s other lives involved , and it’s hardly only men who speak out for the defenceless in the womb. ******************************* #1: It is NOT the baby who pays (there IS no baby until later in its development- even God, when he created Adam didn't call the job finished until he BREATHED life into him)- it is the female body and the emotional, psychological and physical trauma that pays. #2: I can't fathom any system that demands that a body should carry a fetus that was created by rape, whether forcible or statuatory, to term. FORCIBLE rape is an absolute horror. Statuatory rape indicates that either the female was too young to give valid consent or that by reason of a mental or emotional disorder the female was not capable of giving valid consent. #3: Men have no frame of reference in understanding this issue. The men of the Supreme Court should have recused themselves in the matter; it should have been debated and decided upon solely by the three women Justices. (Of course, if that stipulation were made, the question would not have been accepted for review.) #4: I share someone else's proposal: Young men should be given a mandatory vasectomy. When they have demonstrated the maturity and the ability to take on responsibility, the vasectomy can be reversed. That suggestion is no more outrageous than what is being demanded of the female body. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Donuel Date: 03 Aug 22 - 07:53 AM There is extreme confusion in Texas as to how close to death by sepsis a woman must be to have medical treatment regarding a dead or dying fetus. Some go by the stench of death in discharge and others by a 104 fever. Texas is the state that has a $20,000 bounty for turning in anyone who aids a woman to get an abortion, even if its an Uber ride. It is morning glory for Kansas |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Ebbie Date: 03 Aug 22 - 04:03 PM Where do you get the $20,000 figure, Donuel? The last I knew, it is $10,000, which is bad enough, but we need to make sure we state facts. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Steve Shaw Date: 03 Aug 22 - 04:26 PM You're right, Ebbie. As the Guardian says, comment is free but facts are sacred. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Donuel Date: 03 Aug 22 - 06:44 PM Times are fluid in conservative states where they are going so far as promoting laws to protect rapists and even each member of the rapist's family. https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2022/03/idaho-abortion-bill-rapist-families Sueing in court can have variable amounts and outcomes be it in any state. There is no fixed amount except in cases when a cap is put on awards. So no particular amount is set in stone. But whenever 10K is awarded to an 'abortion bounty hunter' or a rapist consider yourself correct. Who pays the $10,000? If they win, plaintiffs can recover at least $10,000 for each abortion prohibited under the law. The money damages could well run higher if a lawsuit has many defendants in the case. “The defendant — whether a provider, funder, clergyperson, friend or family member — pays the damages which are set at a minimum of $10,000. If there are several defendants, they each pay $10,000 in damages,” Elizabeth Sepper, a professor specializing in health law and religious liberty at the University of Texas at Austin’s School of Law. By the way Ebbie thank you for the prior quality post. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Helen Date: 03 Aug 22 - 07:40 PM I second that, Ebbie. "Thank you for the prior quality post." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Helen Date: 03 Aug 22 - 07:54 PM An interesting speculative article about the possible political implications of the ballot in Kansas. Kansas put abortion rights on the ballot. The surprising outcome is reverberating across the United States "And while abortion opponents in Kansas have described it as a "temporary setback", others see it as a resounding rebuke of the Supreme Court. "With midterm elections looming in November, how far that backlash extends could have major consequences for the rest of the country." As I said earlier in this thread,16 Jul 22 - 08:44 PM "It's a possibility that the women voters in the US might get as motivated as the Aussie women in our recent federal election." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Steve Shaw Date: 03 Aug 22 - 08:02 PM Well yes. But mandatory vasectomies? Really?? First of all, a civilised society does not condone the enforced mutilation of its citizens, whether that's female genital mutilation, circumcision or vasectomy. Secondly (and far less relevantly), reversal of vasectomy is far from straightforward. It is often, usually, difficult or impossible. I had a vasectomy a year after our second child was born. I was told then to not expect it to be reversible. Times may have changed in that regard for all I know, but I still can't understand why this notion is even on the agenda. There's just a whiff, in my opinion, of latent man-hatred in the suggestion. The statement that men can't understand this because we have no frame of reference worries me greatly. Let me just tell you that we men are not all the same. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Donuel Date: 03 Aug 22 - 08:18 PM My ego is outside the door but still alive so I enjoy saying "I told you so". NASA now begins public UFP investigation. They need to search their archives first. I'm afraid they may find their data is missing like the pentagon and Secret Service. This process was stalled by the fact trump was in office. He could have royally screwed up disclosure in ways that were unpredictable. I am particularly delighted that the reversal of the american academy of sciences regarding ufo's virtually exonerates my friend Dr. J Allen Hynek who was snubbed and 'excommunicated' by them 3 decades ago. Sacred facts are crippled and slowed by assholes. The late John of Kansas often mentioned that Kansas folks are not the same crazed creeps that live in Oklahoma and Texas. I am not surprised by the win to protect abortion but the margin is unheard of in this time of close elections and amendments. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Steve Shaw Date: 03 Aug 22 - 08:31 PM Well we could say that sacred facts are screwed up by magic mushrooms too. There's no need for you to tell us more. The Kansas vote gives us a smidgen of hope. I haven't looked into whether such a ballot will be replicated in other states. It does seem from opinion polls that the majority of Americans don't support the Supreme Court decision, at least in part. However, I'll have to have a think about that: at the time of the abolition of hanging in the UK, 84% of the populace (according to the polls of the time: is that a caveat?) wanted to retain hanging. Dunno whether they were asked whether we should bring back the birch... I'm always wary of using poll results to give me succour apropos of my own views. I think we call it confirmation bias. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Donuel Date: 03 Aug 22 - 08:43 PM Anti abortionists are pushing the a href="https://www.firehouse.com/stations/news/21263216/baby-was-surrendered-in-a-safe-haven-baby-box-at-carmel-in-fire-station-345">fire staion baby box |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Donuel Date: 03 Aug 22 - 08:53 PM Baby drop off boxes https://www.firehouse.com/stations/news/21263216/baby-was-surrendered-in-a-safe-haven-baby-box-at-carmel-in-fire-station-345 You could and do say anything Steve but you don't know a thing about psyilocybin so when you do say something stupid I know which end I am hearing. Honestly, when I speak of assholes I am not always talking about you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Steve Shaw Date: 03 Aug 22 - 09:04 PM "you don't know a thing about psyilocybin" Well my degree is in botany and plant technology from Imperial College, so I do know things, though I've never been stupid enough to indulge. The real world is wonderful enough for me. You should try it some time. Actually, it could just be that I know a bit more about psilocybin than you do. Keeping a supply of it in your bedroom does not make you an expert, old chap. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Donuel Date: 03 Aug 22 - 09:19 PM Whats the penalty for a false police report to Interpol? Its late and you drank too much again. Go to sleep. It seems so unlikely a turn of events but the world is saved from a second term of Trump because of the reversal of Roe v Wade. Even Arizona goes from a 5 point win for Trump but with the issue of abortion it goes to a 60% win for Democrats. Abortion aborts Trump. Who knew. Well...I hoped. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Steve Shaw Date: 04 Aug 22 - 04:38 AM Are you a peeping Tom? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 04 Aug 22 - 06:33 AM "a civilised society does not condone the enforced mutilation of its citizens, whether that's female genital mutilation, circumcision or vasectomy" On that basis there aren't any civilised countries, Steve. There is no country that bans infant male circumcision. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: MaJoC the Filk Date: 04 Aug 22 - 07:01 AM > The Kansas vote gives us a smidgen of hope. I haven't looked into > whether such a ballot will be replicated in other states. It'll serve as a warning to other states to never let voters near a ballot box .... or to keep sending them there till they get the outcome they first thought of, then nail it into place. "Will of the People" an' all that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Steve Shaw Date: 04 Aug 22 - 07:26 AM True, Kevin, but that doesn't legitimise a procedure that mutilates young boys needlessly. It is a downright uncivilised thing to do. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 04 Aug 22 - 07:39 AM Agreed. But undoubtedly any attempt to delegitimise it would undoubtedly attract a host of very unsavoury anti-semites and islamophobes, and anyone arguing for it would be lumped in with them. Which is rather similar to what happens in other contexts… |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Donuel Date: 04 Aug 22 - 08:41 AM If the issue of abortion stands alone it will have overwhelming support but when tied to a cult personality the margin narrows, by how much is indeed uncertain. Beyond human concerns, in fighting and personal interests there is the fact that the Earth has defenses against our 8 billion+ over population. They are called limits. I remember as a kid when we were at 3 billion strong. I won't pretend we are at a population high water mark but I admit it feels that way. Yep population is exponential but what feeds us is incremental. Limits are out there somewhere and they won't be pretty. In fact they aren't pretty now are they? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 04 Aug 22 - 09:00 AM We don't have exponential growth. Population growth had pretty well ceased in all developed countries, including China. It's estimated that world maximum population will peak around the end of the century, at about 11 billion, with gradual reduction from then on. Of course things could happen that bring that figure way down… |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: MaJoC the Filk Date: 04 Aug 22 - 10:40 AM > We don't have exponential growth. We would, if it wasn't for said limits --- they're called "Malthusian checks" in the appropriate trades. Sadly, mankind seems to be cashing theirs in on behalf of the entire ecosphere. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Ebbie Date: 04 Aug 22 - 12:14 PM Donuel, unless you have found uncounted pockets of people, we have not yet officially arrived at 8 billion in population. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Donuel Date: 04 Aug 22 - 12:20 PM The UN 'celebrated' the fact last week. Or was it this week? You got me Ebbie. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Donuel Date: 04 Aug 22 - 12:27 PM United Nations — The world's population is expected to reach eight billion on November 15, the United Nations forecast Monday in a report that said India will surpass China as the most populous country on Earth in 2023. That overall population milestone "is a reminder of our shared responsibility to care for our planet and a moment to reflect on where we still fall short of our commitments to one another," Secretary General Antonio Guterres said, without citing specifics. "This is an occasion to celebrate our diversity, recognize our common humanity, and marvel at advancements in health that have extended lifespans and dramatically reduced maternal and child mortality rates," he added. I do not share his celebration. imo In Malthusian terms we (the global we) look screwed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Donuel Date: 04 Aug 22 - 12:58 PM You don't have to share my reality to study: Malthusian theory In the late eighteenth century, in 1798, England's renowned economist Thomas Malthus, in his book ‘Essay on the Principal of Population’ 1 , propounded a stirring theory about population, according to his name, it is called the Malthusian Population Theory. [1] Malthus discussed the problem of population increase in the food supply and the scarcity of production rule. According to Malthus, population increases in geometric rates and food production increases at arithmetical rate. In the twentieth century, we will see how logical the population theory of Malthus is in today's world and how unreasonable. Although the population theory of Malthus is somewhat true for the underdeveloped countries. Due to the development and use of science and technology in the present world, the population theory of Malthas has been criticized by various modern economists. Everyone wants a career so denying the obvious works for some. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 04 Aug 22 - 02:31 PM Average number of children in families in the USA is below 2.0. Significantly lower in Europe (1.3 in Germany, for example) and Japan. Not the result of pressures of starvation. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Donuel Date: 04 Aug 22 - 04:16 PM The 5 billion increase in population in my life did not come from Italy, US or Japan. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Steve Shaw Date: 04 Aug 22 - 06:01 PM Perhaps someone here would like to apprise as to what the consideration of world population has to do with the issue of restricting abortions for American women, interesting though it might be. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Helen Date: 04 Aug 22 - 07:25 PM Hmm! A connection between population increase and pregnancies? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Steve Shaw Date: 04 Aug 22 - 08:41 PM The driver of population increase, or slowdown, is birth rate. There are many factors that affect birth rate which have been well-documented. Abortions scarcely impact on that at all. If you make abortion illegal, there will be more backstreet abortions. Whether or not abortions are permitted doesn't impact on the overall abortion numbers very much at all. This is a matter of sheer statistics. It's rather difficult to see why this has to be explained to intelligent people. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Helen Date: 04 Aug 22 - 09:24 PM I'd be interested to read the scientific studies and articles on which you base your statements. You might like to read this article for a start. There are lots more relevant articles available. Why We Need a Contraception Revolution Section headings in the article: * We have already exceeded the Earth’s predicted carrying capacity—and climate change will make things worse. * To reduce unplanned pregnancies, educate and empower young women and provide them with more contraception choices. “An unplanned pregnancy can ruin young women economically,” explains Anderson. “We want to develop products that are more accessible to all women. Bringing the number of unplanned pregnancies down is an important step we can take to rebalance the planet.” * New contraception approaches could help reduce healthcare costs, save human lives, and preserve Earth’s natural resources for future generations. * New contraception concepts are already emerging. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Steve Shaw Date: 05 Aug 22 - 03:54 AM Well if you insist on diverting the topic towards discussing population issues, take a look at this excellent piece on the BBC News website : Fertility rate: 'Jaw-dropping' global crash in children being born The increased access to contraception allowing women to control how many children they have, along with the increasing role of women in the workplace, the cost of childcare, etc., have caused the global fertility rate (nothing to do with sperm getting less healthy, etc.) to crash in the last 50 years. Some countries, China and Spain for example, can expect their populations to halve by 2100. In some regards this is not necessarily a good thing. It's a good read. And abortion doesn't get a mention. I asked what discussing population has to do with restricting abortion in America, the supposed theme of this thread. All I have in response so far is sidestepping. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Bonzo3legs Date: 05 Aug 22 - 04:21 AM I remember many instances of abortions in the 60s following a leg-over in the back of a car!!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Helen Date: 05 Aug 22 - 04:52 AM Abortion is "contraception" after the fact. If contraception was more readily available to all women regardless of their socio-economic status then the rate of abortions would drop. I am certain that abortion would not be the first contraceptive choice of the majority of women who have them. If they could have avoided getting pregnant in the first place then there would be less abortions. I repeat the quote from that article: “An unplanned pregnancy can ruin young women economically,” explains Anderson. “We want to develop products that are more accessible to all women. Bringing the number of unplanned pregnancies down is an important step we can take to rebalance the planet.” And Bonzo, just what I expect from you - a sexist, misogynist comment with no empathy or understanding of the issue. It takes two to tango, and men should bear the burden of unwanted pregnancies as well, rather than fulfilling the old saying, "eats, roots, shoots and leaves" and thinking it is all just a game. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Steve Shaw Date: 05 Aug 22 - 04:53 AM Well you clearly moved in strange circles. Most of those abortions would have been illegal. But they still happened, and that is part of what were discussing here. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Steve Shaw Date: 05 Aug 22 - 04:54 AM That was to Bonzo. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Steve Shaw Date: 05 Aug 22 - 05:06 AM No irony, then in the fact that you accuse Bonzo of misogyny (no comment from me on that as I've addressed his post with a serious response already) then lump all men together in misandry. I don't know any men "who think it's all a game," actually. And contraception means action to prevent conception. If you are having an abortion, you've already conceived. The two are not the same thing. I'm not going to argue for the moment "conception" actually takes place, or whether IUDs and morning-after pills are actually devices to procure very early abortions, though I note that some anti-abortionists keep silent about that potential inconsistency. For the second time of asking, let's try to avoid this anti-men sentiment. We don't all treat "it" as a game and we don't all deserve to have enforced vasectomies (actually, none of us do). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Steve Shaw Date: 05 Aug 22 - 06:53 AM Typos and errors creeping in - I really must try to not do this on my phone without my reading specs... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Helen Date: 05 Aug 22 - 03:48 PM You can see that I wrote the word "contraception" with quotation marks so I was playing with the word to get my point across, but also the term is taken to mean preventing pregnancy however the term for getting/becoming pregnant is "conception" or "conceiving" from the Latin root "con" i.e. "with" and "capio" i.e. I capture. According to Etymology Online the word "conception" in relation to pregnancy was not used until the 14th Century. Other related words are "concept", "inception", "accept", "precept", etc. "Contra", on the other hand means "against" so it has been used to imply actions taken to prevent pregnancy however technically the term perhaps should be "contraconception" which is unnecessarily unwieldy but would mean (action) against conceiving or becoming pregnant. Technically, an abortion is a procedure to prevent birth at full term. My use of the term "contraception" in relation to abortion was technically not correct which is why I used quotation marks and that shows that I was aware of that. Now, Steve, if you would like to stop doing your usual pedantic superiority act about terminology and get back to the topic at hand, that would be nice. I notice that when vasectomy was mentioned, it suddenly became personal to you. Abortion, unwanted pregnancy, and all of the related emotional and social and economic issues is personal to the women experiencing it and the people around them. It's not an impersonal topic for standing on a soapbox and declaiming and theorising. It requires empathy, understanding and social and emotional support for the people experiencing it. You can declaim your theories as much as you like but what I notice is missing from your posts is empathy. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Donuel Date: 05 Aug 22 - 04:38 PM The ugly truth about abortion prior to it being legal over 50 years ago is the amateur abortion. Even in Roman times there were concoctions that could cause abortions. Sometimes they worked. In my case they didn't. I've mentioned it before to the cessation of discussion except for Jack Campin. Some of us have unusual beginings, some of us were never told. At any rate my prenatal experience reinforces the need for safe effective abortions. Helen, As much as you would like it to be true you can't get empathy from a narcicist or social psychopath. The saying is you can't get blood from a stone. Unnoticed by the narcicist is that they take personally things totally unrelated them because everything is always about them in their mind. People with empathy can be offended or forgive or ignore. Ignoring is fine since there is no cure for who people are. Its only important to warn others to the 20% who are the social psychopaths of the possible dangers. They aren't all dangerous outside their sphere of influence. But they are an annoyance at times. In my case I am a bit of a Loki when dealing with those types. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Steve Shaw Date: 05 Aug 22 - 04:49 PM The posts from both of you are so beneath contempt that a response would be inappropriate. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Dave the Gnome Date: 05 Aug 22 - 05:40 PM The population in Europe and the US is on the decline. That seems to have been agreed. So where is the population increasing? I would assume that Africa and Asia are the major contributors but please correct me if I am wrong. In either case, I cannot see a connection between abortions in the USA and the population of the world. Would anyone care to enlighten me? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Helen Date: 05 Aug 22 - 06:06 PM Well Dave, Here is a population graph: Estimates of population evolutio n in different continents between 1950 and 2050, according to the United Nations. The vertical axis is logarithmic and is in millions of people. Any sort of limitation on the number of pregnancies brought to successful term would bring down the population. Limitations can include contraception or abortions or, for example, the one child policy implemented in China between 1980 and 2016, or sexual abstinence, but given the "sexual revolution" of the last century I personally think that that is unlikely in developed countries at least. As one article I read stated, with the overturning of the Roe v. Wade decision in the US it is possible that another item on the political agenda might be constraints on the use of contraceptives. Assuming that a similar number of people continue to have sex at the same or similar rate as at present, the population would be likely to grow in the absence of contraception and/or abortion. There would also be an increase in adoptions or children placed into orphanages. There would be an impact on the social environment, and on government services required. None of this takes into account the emotional, economic and social toll on the parent/s of these children if the pregnancy was unwanted. Personally, I would favour the contraception method where possible, but abortion should be available where needed. That's my opinion. I have strong views on the sanctity of life, but I also have strong views on a woman's right to choose in decisions about her own body and her own life. Personally, I think an effective method to make the Supreme Court judges rethink their decision is to abandon all those unplanned babies on their doorsteps and see how long it takes before they change their minds. (I'm only half serious about that. Think of the poor babies!) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Helen Date: 05 Aug 22 - 06:32 PM And then, it depends on how many children are born to that increased population. If in every case two people have two children then the population would rise in a reasonably stable way, but when there are more children, then they grow up and produce more children. For example, if 2 people have 2 children who then have 2 children themselves, the total is 8 (i.e. the couple, their 2 children and 4 grandchildren). If the couple has 9 children then the total is 92 (i.e. the couple, their 9 children and their 81 grandchildren). Take the second example forward a few generations and there will be a population explosion. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Donuel Date: 05 Aug 22 - 07:17 PM The UN says that India is foremost in population growth. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Steve Shaw Date: 05 Aug 22 - 07:33 PM There is no connection, Dave, and the two shithouses here who are trying to divert the conversation are showing a complete lack of understanding. One is a serial man-hater and the other is a serial mushroom-addled eejit. Don't waste your time! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Helen Date: 05 Aug 22 - 08:05 PM Well, there you go again, buddy. Making unfounded assumptions. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Steve Shaw Date: 05 Aug 22 - 08:10 PM Nothing you ever say is founded on anything other than your own parish-pump Aussie prejudices, Helen. Try looking outward once in a while. And do try to drop the man-hatred occasionally. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Donuel Date: 05 Aug 22 - 08:18 PM You could be president of your own nationalist fascist party. Spot on mate. My real last name used to be Shithouse but we changed it to La-trine. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Donuel Date: 05 Aug 22 - 11:37 PM If you are not for freedom of speech for people you dislike, you are not for freedom at all. You wouldn't know this but in my communication with mods I consistantly insist upon your freedom of speech and denigrate the very concept of cancel culture. Nor is it illegal to lie. It won't change a believer's mind but I sometimes correct the record. If ever there was time to hate men who want to control women's health, today is it. US conservatives, and that includes Supreme Court Justices, are primed to remove the right to use contraceptives next. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Ebbie Date: 05 Aug 22 - 11:47 PM Man, this thread has gone down the toilet. Steve Shaw, I must apologize to you. My presenting the case for mandatory vasectomies was proposed tongue in cheek - there is no way I would support any such action, no more than I would back anyone proposing forced closure of a female body's vagina, say. Either would be extreme to the max. Incidentally, I don't consider you to be narcissistic or lacking empathy. I suspect that you are being attacked online in a way that they would never do in person. I may not always understand you or even always agree with your conclusions but I think that in person I would always respect the processes you apply. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Dave the Gnome Date: 06 Aug 22 - 02:50 AM Thanks Helen. The data that I needed was not there though because I used the wrong phrase so sorry for that. I said that the population was decreasing in the developed world, which is untrue because it doesn't allow for migration. I should have said that the birth rate was decreasing in the developed world, which is true. It has no relevance on the topic in question as far as I can see. If the birth rate is less than 2 per woman, which seems to be the case in the US (1.7 in 2019), then abortion will have no effect. I have always been pro choice and against the type of control that the fundamentalists in the US are now excercising. Limiting abortion as they are doing now is wrong, but it is also wrong to claim that it will have a major impact on world birth rates. It does the case against them no favours if your arguments are false. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Helen Date: 06 Aug 22 - 03:25 AM Thanks Dave, I'm basing my comments on the assumption that the present data for those countries in the developed world where contraception and abortion are relatively commonly used would influence the current birth rate. There would be less births in those countries than in countries where contraception and/or abortion are forbidden or not accepted socially, i.e. where births would occur naturally without intervention prior to or after conception. I tried to find a graph to check whether China's one child policy had an obvious effect on the population increase rate but maybe I didn't look in the right places. I'll keep looking. I'm not fixed on finding the answers I want. I just want to find real facts. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Helen Date: 06 Aug 22 - 03:52 AM For example, this page shows: How China’s population has changed since 1950 with reference to the start and end of the one child policy. This page discusses: 1961: Introduction of the oral contraceptive pill in Australia Yes, you're right. Immigration muddies the statistical waters when looking at population growth. We have - did haved before COVID, that is - a fairly high immigration rate so this page shows a chart of birth rate in Australia since 1935: birth rate After the post-WWII baby boom there is a significant drop to below the 1935 rate from around the time that contraception became available. Note: in my post-grad management degree I studied a statistics module for one semester. I like stats but it's not my main area of interest, though I confess to being a spreadsheet nerd. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Dave the Gnome Date: 06 Aug 22 - 04:01 AM A real fact is that the birth rate in the US was 1.7 per woman in the US in 2019 and that the abortion rate would have no appreciable effect on that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Helen Date: 06 Aug 22 - 04:49 AM I haven't looked this up but are there statistics on the number of abortions in the US? I'm wondering whether personal privacy would prevent the stats being made public. I can't imagine someone wanting to shout it from the rooftops. That's kind of why I am referring to the availability of both contraception and abortion, in relation to birth rates. I remember a work colleague back in the mid-'80's, who was in a healthy, long-term relationship, telling me that her preferred choice for ensuring that she wouldn't have babies would be abortion. I diplomatically and quietly stated my thoughts on the matter and I have to admit, I wasn't personally convinced that it seemed a good first choice when contraception was available, but I didn't push my point of view which centres around prevention is better than cure. I also never revealed the conversation to anyone else. It was a private conversation. It doesn't change my point of view on the need for the availability of abortion, especially for medical emergencies or cases such as rape or child sexual abuse, etc. I still stand by the need for women to be in control of their own bodies and their life choices. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Steve Shaw Date: 06 Aug 22 - 04:57 AM That's right, Dave. ?? Please continue to be the small, quiet voice that sets aside all the sidestepping bullshit of recent days! I'd love to talk about contraception, fertility rate and population, but not in a Roe v. Wade thread. To swerve the thread in that direction, whilst throwing in a healthy smattering of misandry, is just crackpotism. Thank you Ebbie. I did wonder whether you were being tongue-in-cheek and I called it wrong. I have always respected your measured postings. If there's one person here who doesn't need you to fight my corner with the moderators, Donuel, it's me. Please stop being so patronisingly ridiculous. My word, there are times when your over-inflated view of your own intellect is truly staggering. Have a nice day. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Dave the Gnome Date: 06 Aug 22 - 05:08 AM I still stand by the need for women to be in control of their own bodies and their life choices Absolutely, Helen. So do I. Which is why I am wondering why you are watering down the argument so much by changing the topic to birthrates :-( |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Helen Date: 06 Aug 22 - 06:24 AM I'm looking at the topic in the sense of why women would choose to have an abortion, or use contraception. I'm looking at the impact on women's lives and the choices we can make when we are not faced with the prospect of having lots and lots of children, year after year after year. Theoretically, a woman could have a baby every year, or even more. That's a lot of babies between the start and end of childbearing years. What are the social, emotional and economic impacts on the lives of women when they have choices regarding the number of children they bear in their lives? Nowadays, women and their partners can decide when to have children, how many children to have, and whether/how to fulfill the rest of their life ambitions rather than having to be wholly and solely a mother in their lifetime, whether that suits them or not. And yes, some women do want their prime life ambition to be raising children. The choice for a woman to have a career in pre-contraception times would usually mean not marrying, not having children. The classic image of the spinster. Looking at birth rates in pre- and post-birth control times is a way to look at the consequences on women's lives. The bigger picture. Think about this. If a woman has her first child when she is about 20, then a child every year, and her last child when she is about 40, she has looked after a baby every year for 20 years, and by then the older children may have produced grandchildren and she may be babysitting them too while looking after a baby, some toddlers, some school age kids and some teenagers. If that isn't fulfilling her life goals, then she can't break free of it and do whatever else she wants to do. Abortion isn't just about making the decision to terminate a pregnancy for whatever reason, it is also about how having a child or not having a child will affect the mother's whole life. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Steve Shaw Date: 06 Aug 22 - 06:24 AM Hmm. Pre-coffee question marks in that last post! They mean nowt, Dave. And aye, let's focus, eh? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Steve Shaw Date: 06 Aug 22 - 06:37 AM I see that we're still conflating contraception (good) and abortion (bad) then... One fine day we'll get away from seeing abortion as a lifestyle choice and see it instead for what it is, a failure of education... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Helen Date: 06 Aug 22 - 07:03 AM The slogans, "My body, my choice" and "A woman's right to choose" are not just about choosing whether to have an abortion. The choices are life choices, including when or whether to have children and how many. If you watch the UK TV show called Long Lost Family you will see real-life women who had to make possibly the most difficult choice in their lives on whether to have the baby or give him/her up for adoption and then they had to live with that choice for the rest of their lives. Usually there were extremely pressing circumstances which gave them very little real choice. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Bonzo3legs Date: 06 Aug 22 - 07:11 AM I wonder how many abortions have happened as a result of a torn johnny?? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Steve Shaw Date: 06 Aug 22 - 09:33 AM The potential result of a ripped condom would be pregnancy. Duh. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Bonzo3legs Date: 06 Aug 22 - 10:40 AM Yes and potential abortion. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Donuel Date: 22 Aug 22 - 07:23 AM http://fulltext.scholarena.co/History-of-Nazi-Dental-Gold-From-Dead-Bodies-till-Swiss-Bank.php The Muslims hate the Hindus and the Hindus hate the Muslims the protestants hate the Catholics and everybody hates the Jews...lets hear it for national brotherhood week... Dehumanizing goes farther than most people can imagine. It starts low and slow and escalates rapidly. Many people have heard that freshly killed Jews from the pesticide Zyklon B were then inspected for gold teeth removal. It was very lucrative doing business with Switzerland since the richemarke was not a global legal tender. What people do not know is that nazis discovered that other orifices were also searched for valuable items, including the anus of men and the vagina for women. Special forceps were made for these searches. This was not work the Germans found appealing so it was given to slave Jewish labor. This was a dark and shitty process. Reversing Roe Wade is not described as dehumanizing by the white nationalists. I say it obviously is. Dehumanizing women leads to dehumanizing all the fascist enemies. It is not an isolated event and will expand. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Helen Date: 22 Aug 22 - 11:22 PM Abortion barriers lead women to self-harm, study finds |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Steve Shaw Date: 24 Sep 22 - 08:18 PM So it seems that some Republicans, not content with merely criminalising abortion, are also intent on criminalising IVF and even have their sights on contraception. From the Guardian: US anti-abortion extremists are already waging war on IVF (Arwa Mahdawi) Where's the outrage, yanks?? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: robomatic Date: 25 Sep 22 - 03:19 PM This is an opinion NOT backed up by the necessary reading and study: Seems to me the Constitutional underpinning in the Dobbs decision is not any more solid (possibly even more handwaving here) than the original 7-2 Roe v. Wade decision. In which case I am changing my life-long opinion that 9 justices is enough. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Donuel Date: 25 Sep 22 - 04:14 PM If one lived here they would know the outrage. If one claims that clear concise English makes no sense to them, there are 2 possible explanations, prejudice or dementia. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: MaJoC the Filk Date: 26 Sep 22 - 04:28 AM Nine seems about right (but pushing the limit) for a committee to have a range of opinions but to be of approximately one mind; any more, and you start getting factions, even in the absence of political leanings. I can back that up with arguments based on Parkinson's research and Dunbar's Numbers if you like, but Herself's waxing sarcastic about helping with the house cleaning. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Steve Shaw Date: 26 Sep 22 - 06:23 AM "You can't understand American politics or other goings-on unless you live here." What tommy-rot. We get all the same news as you do. I even read the NYT! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: MaJoC the Filk Date: 26 Sep 22 - 10:51 AM I can't understand English politics, and I *do* live [t]here. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Stilly River Sage Date: 26 Sep 22 - 11:11 AM Shifting the argument about US news to a new thread? Time to drop it. There's an interesting interview in the New York Times yesterday with Elizabeth Banks, who made the film Call Jane before Roe was overturned. That event thrusts this film into the spotlight (it's due to be released in late October).
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Steve Shaw Date: 26 Sep 22 - 11:41 AM 'Twas your friend who did it Maggie. Have a word... |
.svg){kind=link}