Dudes can't get pregnant. If it was my psy I would make sure.
| CURRENT EVENTS Roe vs Wade and all that comes with this story. This guy. I am at a loss for words.
- Thread starter SoCalPatrick
- Start date
ElephantStomp
Member
Women can’t get pregnant without the dude and since some think women should be forced to be pregnant then dudes should be forced to get a vasectomy
rocknthefreeworld
Member
Once again. They are not 100% guaranteed to work. They are not 100% reversible. They also can reverse themselves. Women have the option to get a tubal ligation that is as good as the vasectomy might be and also reversible. Why don't they make the choice for their own bodies and do that?
ElephantStomp
Member
So, this is just simply about men determining what women can and can’t do with their own bodies.
“As good as a vasectomy” equals dudes just want to say what happens and how it happens with a woman’s body
TerryP
Staff
Where is the slippery slope found in the codified law? It's one of those off the cuff things that I make me pause, ya know?
I'm still circling the question how people are upset about SCOTUS saying this isn't our decision to make and they don't like the decision they may make saying it's not our place to make ....
ElephantStomp
Member
The same people (not you specifically) whining about the judges safety didn’t want the Jan 6 rioters charged, it’s only when it’s people they disagree with.
To me protesting on a public street is protected, they’re simply telling the judges they’re idiots and they disagree, it would have to be proven that they’re trying to change their mind or intimidating.
There was no reason for the right wing SCOTUS to change anything, leave the law as it is. People are upset because there was absolutely no reason to change anything. The same as the right would be if a liberal SCOTUS severely restricted the 2nd amendment, only difference is the right would get violent against the government and the left isn’t doing that now
Gentlemen you are not thinking with the big head. If my body could get pregnant, and I didn't want to be, it would be lazy to not use birth control. If I got raped I could have a d and c the next day. Since the 60s there have been options to avoid getting pregnant and all ya'll know it. There is no need to kill a baby. Send Trojan an award for Peter's sake.
footballer
Member
In my opinion, the 2'nd amendment is a guaranteed constitutional right.
The same can't be said of abortion, it is not a constitutional right.
Also in my opinion, if a fetus has a heart beat and it is aborted, you have killed that life.
The same can't be said of abortion, it is not a constitutional right.
Also in my opinion, if a fetus has a heart beat and it is aborted, you have killed that life.
Whether the judges are conservative or liberal, a constitutional republic must protect all branches of government. Internationally, judicial impairment has occurred in weak republics. The law saying you can't attempt to intimidate a judge (or a jury) is a just law.
Roe was originally decided out of thin air. A liberal majority decided what they wanted to do, and they constructed a rickety scaffold, hoisting an unconstitutional banner to provide a Federal umbrella over terminating one million pregnancies a year. It's very telling that no material opposition has arisen alleging the draft opinion misses the mark on its legal merits, just that "Roe should be left alone". It was an untenable decision from the start. And, in perhaps the lone instance of liberals not screaming out against disparate impact, a far greater percentage of black babies are killed from abortions than white babies.
Why Won’t the Left Talk About Racial Disparities in Abortion?
Scholarly studies show that black women are far likelier to terminate their pregnancies than whites.
www.wsj.com
rocknthefreeworld
Member
You talk about body autonomy then say men should have none. The are plenty of women who are against abortion as there are plenty of men who support it.
TerryP
Staff
This is confusing. I don't understand the "rationnel, " pardon my French.
They're telling the judges their idiots when the judges are saying, "okay, decide this closer to home. It's your laws where you live."
They're telling the judges their idiots are an attack on their education, experience, and expertise. Attacks like these aren't forms of intimidation?
If I'm reading what you're saying correctly, because these groups are on public streets they aren't breaking the law.
Intimidation is just like porn, you know what it is when you see it. These groups are intimidating these judicial families. It would be a big disturbance to anyone's life. There's a lot of adjectives that can be used here; frightening, disturbing, menacing, scaring, pressuring, hounding, and tormenting to name a few. All are the effect of these groups being at their homes.
It's so simple. How can the reasoning to excuse it be so confusing?
TerryP
Staff
Wow. That's a can of worms.
In the leaked draft it was written that this ruling will have no precedent over another. And January 6th enters the picture. It's a detour but let's go there for a minute.
Rioters. Protestors. Insurrectionist.
Damn. How society loves to play loosely with words that mean things.
Where are these people talking about those involved with the Jan. 6th riot not charged with rioting? I've not seen, heard, or read anyone say such a thing. Those people being charged with sedition conspiracy? There's been legal discussion here and there with a lot noting no one has been charged with sedition: conspiracies take on a life of their own. A month or so ago one of the main Oath Keepers leaders plead guilty to sedition conspiracy.
I'm continually shaking my head at the thought—rather, this narrative—there's this huge group of people that don't thing what happened January 6th was wrong. That's a group that's out of touch with the world around them.
I find it quite ironic January 6th is called an insurrection when no one was charged with insurrection. Playing loosely with words, I know.
I read this as "playing loosely with words." Those questioning charges (Jan. 6th) may be "whining" about judges safety: very likely they are. It's only a fraction of the group, overall, that disagrees with what's happening here. Just as @It Takes Eleven noted earlier, it's "a just law."
ElephantStomp
Member
They shouldn’t, women don’t have it. What makes us better than women?
ElephantStomp
Member
I don’t think it’s any of those things. I think it’s simply people protesting a ruling and/or opinion that didn’t need to be made. Now if these people were doing something to the Justice’s property then my opinion would change.
ElephantStomp
Member
I only brought up Jan 6th because the same people whining about justice’s safety and screaming about the leak are the right which a majority of the right in DC & on Fox News don’t think people should’ve been charged in relation to Jan 6th or they like to now downplay those events. That moron Ted Cruz said the other day on Hannity that the Roe v Wade protests are worse than Jan 6th and said “On Jan 6th, 2021 you had peaceful people protesting & yet the corporate media and democrats slander them with the made up term insurrectionists”……how does anybody with any semblance of an IQ come up with that? Even more confusing is Cruz graduated from Princeton and Harvard, so he’s intelligent (educationally at least).Wow. That's a can of worms.
In the leaked draft it was written that this ruling will have no precedent over another. And January 6th enters the picture. It's a detour but let's go there for a minute.
Rioters. Protestors. Insurrectionist.
Damn. How society loves to play loosely with words that mean things.
Where are these people talking about those involved with the Jan. 6th riot not charged with rioting? I've not seen, heard, or read anyone say such a thing. Those people being charged with sedition conspiracy? There's been legal discussion here and there with a lot noting no one has been charged with sedition: conspiracies take on a life of their own. A month or so ago one of the main Oath Keepers leaders plead guilty to sedition conspiracy.
I'm continually shaking my head at the thought—rather, this narrative—there's this huge group of people that don't thing what happened January 6th was wrong. That's a group that's out of touch with the world around them.
I find it quite ironic January 6th is called an insurrection when no one was charged with insurrection. Playing loosely with words, I know.
I read this as "playing loosely with words." Those questioning charges (Jan. 6th) may be "whining" about judges safety: very likely they are. It's only a fraction of the group, overall, that disagrees with what's happening here. Just as @It Takes Eleven noted earlier, it's "a just law."
rocknthefreeworld
Member
The argument on abortion is that her autonomy does not override the babies autonomy. That is why it becomes an argument of life at conception vs abortion until birth in the end. Both extremes feel that giving an inch erodes their argument. In the end, there is a point where abortion is murder. It isn't 2 days but it also isn't 39 weeks and 5 days.
ElephantStomp
Member
I’ve always believed in some sort of time restriction
The proposed bill provides no time restriction.
ElephantStomp
Member
That’s part of the problem, neither side is willing to compromise.
Earlier, I recapped that most States either have a viability restriction or a 20 week restriction (with exceptions for the woman's health). I would consider all of those a compromise. In the current bill, the Democrats are proposing to wipe away all of those restrictions which currently coexist with the Roe ruling. That's not compromise. That's a sweeping Federal grab at removing all restrictions on abortion.
