Poll: Abortion, Roe v. Wade

What is you're opinion on abortion ?

  • Fully pro-life, including Embryo

    Votes: 17 2.6%
  • Pro-life but exceptions for morning after pill and IUDs

    Votes: 25 3.8%
  • Pro-choice but up until heartbeat limit of 6-weeks

    Votes: 64 9.8%
  • Pro-choice up to pre-viability limit (based on local legislation)

    Votes: 442 67.5%
  • Fully pro-choice until birth

    Votes: 107 16.3%

  • Total voters
    655
Soldato
Joined
7 Nov 2009
Posts
19,123
Location
Glasgow
The ability to access safe, legal abortions should not be a political right, it is a human right.

To condemn the poor and those unable to travel to not have sex or forcing those who can’t look after a kid to do so is cruel, inhumane and ineffective. You guys aren’t saving lives, you are condemning them.

Stolen from a woman, who has much more right to chair this debate than us:

I'm not pro-murdering babies.

I'm pro-Becky who found out at her 20-week anatomy scan that the infant she had been so excited to bring into this world had developed without life sustaining organs.

I'm pro-Susan who was sexually assaulted on her way home from work, only to come to the horrific realization that her assailant planted his seed in her when she got a positive pregnancy test result a month later.

I'm pro-Theresa who hemorrhaged due to a placental abruption, causing her parents, spouse, and children to have to make the impossible decision on whether to save her or her unborn child.

I'm pro-little Cathy who had her innocence ripped away from her by someone she should have been able to trust and her 11-year-old body isn't mature enough to bear the consequence of that betrayal.

I'm pro-Melissa who's working two jobs just to make ends meet and has to choose between bringing another child into poverty or feeding the children she already has because her spouse walked out on her.

I'm pro-Brittany who realizes that she is in no way financially, emotionally, or physically able to raise a child.

I'm pro-Emily who went through IVF, ending up with SIX viable implanted eggs requiring selective reduction to ensure the safety of her and a SAFE number of fetuses.

I'm pro-Jessica who is FINALLY getting the strength to get away from her physically abusive spouse only to find out that she is carrying the monster's child.

I'm pro-Vanessa who went into her confirmation appointment after YEARS of trying to conceive only to hear silence where there should be a heartbeat.

I'm pro-Lindsay who lost her virginity in her sophomore year with a broken condom and now has to choose whether to be a teenage mom or just a teenager.

I'm pro-Courtney who just found out she's already 13 weeks along, but the egg never made it out of her fallopian tube so either she terminates the pregnancy or risks dying from internal bleeding.

You can argue and say that I'm pro-choice all you want, but the truth is:
I'm pro-life.
Their lives.
Women's lives.

You don't get to pick and choose which scenarios should be accepted. It's not about which stories you don't agree with. It's about fighting for the women in the stories that you do agree with and the CHOICE that was made.

Women's rights are meant to protect ALL women, regardless of their situation!

Overturning Roe does not stop abortions, it stops SAFE abortions!

Abortion is healthcare.

#roevwade #prochoice #abortion #women #womensrights #mybody #mychoice #mybodymychoice #promedical
 
Man of Honour
Joined
19 Oct 2002
Posts
28,081
Location
Surrey
I haven't joined this thread so far but I was astonished at the backwards move by the US. I'm absolutely pro choice. That's not to say I am pro abortion as I don't think my wife and I would have one. But not every circumstance is the same and the choice should be available to every woman. It's a shameful move by the US and puts women at risk of seeking unsafe abortions. It's abhorrent.
 
Associate
Joined
20 Aug 2021
Posts
1,771
Location
Krypton
The ability to access safe, legal abortions should not be a political right, it is a human right.
That's where I disagree, it's not a human right to terminate another life it's down to whatever legal legislation each state whishes to adopt.

Conversely I expect you were against strong border controls on the US southern border, despite the fact that an obscenely high number of young girls and women are sexually assaulted and raped traveling illegally across, where were your morals then?
.
 
Soldato
Joined
29 Dec 2014
Posts
4,662
Location
Pangbourne
That's where I disagree, it's not a human right to terminate another life it's down to whatever legal legislation each state whishes to adopt.

Ah, well that's all hunky dory then I guess.

A bunch of state legislators and politicians all up for auction, so rich religious fundamentalist organisations can start piling money into the pockets of politicians to advance their stone age nonsense on everybody.
 
Associate
Joined
20 Aug 2021
Posts
1,771
Location
Krypton
Ah, well that's all hunky dory then I guess.

A bunch of state legislators and politicians all up for auction, so rich religious fundamentalist organisations can start piling money into the pockets of politicians to advance their stone age nonsense on everybody.
Start? Politicians have been taking money from whoever throws it at them for hundreds of years. It's nothing new.
 
Soldato
Joined
29 Dec 2014
Posts
4,662
Location
Pangbourne
Start? Politicians have been taking money from whoever throws it at them for hundreds of years. It's nothing new.

Race to the bottom..

I mean that was arguably the main benefit of Roe vs Wade - it explicitly prohibited individual state legislators from having a say, and the right to abortion rested with the individual, now those rights can be swayed to the highest bidder..

Saying "oh, politicians are corrupt anyway" is just a retreat from dealing with the issue, because it's not how things should be and it should be resisted and weeded out at all costs.
 
Associate
Joined
20 Aug 2021
Posts
1,771
Location
Krypton
Race to the bottom..

I mean that was arguably the main benefit of Roe vs Wade - it explicitly prohibited individual state legislators from having a say, and the right to abortion rested with the individual, now those rights can be swayed to the highest bidder..

Saying "oh, politicians are corrupt anyway" is just a retreat from dealing with the issue, because it's not how things should be and it should be resisted and weeded out at all costs.
That's why it's been overturned though isnt it?the SC has seemed it governmental overreach and it's should be a state issue.

As to any individual wanting to change legislation at a state level, well anyone with pockets deep enough will do, how else do you think career politicians build up personal wealth of hundreds of millions. As to if a state will change its stance on abortion I would assume the only way that will happen is if the state flips from red to blue or visa versa.
 
Soldato
Joined
29 Dec 2014
Posts
4,662
Location
Pangbourne
That's why it's been overturned though isnt it?the SC has seemed it governmental overreach and it's should be a state issue.

Which I think is wrong, because;

As to any individual wanting to change legislation at a state level, well anyone with pockets deep enough will do, how else do you think career politicians build up personal wealth of hundreds of millions.

You're taking an issue where an individual has a personal choice, or a right if you will to make a decision on something. Then instead - putting that issue up for auction and having a decision forced on them one way or another, by people who aren't concerned with them, or what's right or wrong, good or bad - merely who will pay them the most money.

If things at the state level were entirely kosher and not rife with corruption and religious fanatics - then doing it at the state level would make sense. Because the states, legislators and lawmakers could be trusted to act responsibly and do what's right and proper for the people.

But you're never going to get that in the US, it's just going to be one big backward step and result in carnage where people in some states are forced to seek backstreet abortions, meanwhile the state legislator doesn't give a ****. At least before, it didn't matter whether or not they gave a **** because the choice rested with the individual.
 
Associate
Joined
24 Jun 2022
Posts
57
Location
UK
That's why it's been overturned though isnt it?the SC has seemed it governmental overreach and it's should be a state issue.

As to any individual wanting to change legislation at a state level, well anyone with pockets deep enough will do, how else do you think career politicians build up personal wealth of hundreds of millions. As to if a state will change its stance on abortion I would assume the only way that will happen is if the state flips from red to blue or visa versa.

How is state government getting to decide what one can or cannot do with their own body any less overreach than federal government doing the same?

It's the same thing, except that some of the states will choose to restrict freedoms. It's regressive and will cause deaths, unwanted children and generally be a burden. And they won't stop there either, next they'll go after contraceptives, gay rights, trans rights and so on, they've said as much.

If federal government choosing is overreach, then so is state. If you follow it to the logical conclusion it should be down to the individual... which is pro choice.
 
Associate
Joined
20 Aug 2021
Posts
1,771
Location
Krypton
How is state government getting to decide what one can or cannot do with their own body any less overreach than federal government doing the same?

It's the same thing, except that some of the states will choose to restrict freedoms. It's regressive and will cause deaths, unwanted children and generally be a burden. And they won't stop there either, next they'll go after contraceptives, gay rights, trans rights and so on, they've said as much.

If federal government choosing is overreach, then so is state. If you follow it to the logical conclusion it should be down to the individual... which is pro choice.
Each state being some what independent from a central government is essentially the idea behind the constitution is it not? Medical science has come along way from the 60's and early 70's and deaths from abortions has continually decreased, the idea that all of a sudden women are going to be seeking backstreet abortions from individuals with a lighter and a coat hanger is emotive and false.
 
Associate
Joined
24 Jun 2022
Posts
57
Location
UK
Medical science has come along way from the 60's and early 70's and deaths from abortions has continually decreased, the idea that all of a sudden women are going to be seeking backstreet abortions from individuals with a lighter and a coat hanger is emotive and false.

Medical science has indeed come a long way, doesn't help if the states ban the practition of it though. What else will people do?

And we aren't just talking about failed abortions here, there's many medical reasons for an abortion that can endager the mother.

Not everyone has the means to travel out of state to get care, most health insurances in the US have approved networks of physicians. If you go outside you may have to pay the full amount.
 
Associate
Joined
20 Aug 2021
Posts
1,771
Location
Krypton
Medical science has indeed come a long way, doesn't help if the states ban the practition of it though. What else will people do?
How about taking some personal responsibility and not have sex? Ensure they are taking contraception? (yes I'm well aware condom's fail and the pill/IUDs aren't perfect, hell my ex was on the pill when my son was conceived). Not sure on the failure rate when using both forms of contraception though.

The number of abortions were falling year on year in the US anyway.
 
Associate
Joined
24 Jun 2022
Posts
57
Location
UK
How about taking some personal responsibility and not have sex?

Why do you feel people should be punished for doing something natural? Is it a religious thing?

Ensure they are taking contraception? (yes I'm well aware condom's fail and the pill/IUDs aren't perfect, hell my ex was on the pill when my son was conceived). Not sure on the failure rate when using both forms of contraception though.

Again I'll point out that contraceptives are one of the next things they're going to go after.

The number of abortions were falling year on year in the US anyway.

Yes, because of increased education and access to precationary healthcare. They're eroding these already pre-established rights and you're cheering it on.
 
Soldato
Joined
7 Mar 2008
Posts
2,603
Location
Kent
I'm just posting here to say I'm amazed at how there is so many people here whom are advocating for removing women's rights. I expect with these people and the current Cons it will likely happen here too, any excuse for them to screw up more peoples lives. It really does show progress is not linear, the irony is women way back when had more rights, until all the evangelical/catholic ******** came along. And I like all the semantic arguments about is it life when is it life, to trick people. They don't matter, its the women that has to carry it through all 9 months and look after it forever after, to put it bluntly your disgusting if your advocating for forcing her to go through all that against her will.
 
Associate
Joined
20 Aug 2021
Posts
1,771
Location
Krypton
Why do you feel people should be punished for doing something natural? Is it a religious thing?
If someone isn't sensible about a deed that has potentially serious repercussions i.e a child, then maybe don't be stupid and refrain from sleeping with someone. Personal responsibility is a bitch isn't it.

Again I'll point out that contraceptives are one of the next things they're going to go after.
I don't believe Thomas is specifically targeting contraception/same-sex marriages etc rather he's wanting to look at all due process precedents that the court has ruled on.

Yes, because of increased education and access to precationary healthcare. They're eroding these already pre-established rights and you're cheering it on.
So some states banning abortions means that they'll abandon sex education as a whole?
 
Associate
Joined
24 Jun 2022
Posts
57
Location
UK
If someone isn't sensible about a deed that has potentially serious repercussions i.e a child, then maybe don't be stupid and refrain from sleeping with someone. Personal responsibility is a bitch isn't it.

The difference is you think the repercussions should be an unwanted child. I think the repercussion should be the choice to have an abortion, which in itself isn't exactly a pleasant experience.

I don't believe Thomas is specifically targeting contraception/same-sex marriages etc rather he's wanting to look at all due process precedents that the court has ruled on.

So that they can legally outlaw these things.

So some states banning abortions means that they'll abandon sex education as a whole?

As a whole? No, but again they want to regressive and have done for a long time.

 
Associate
Joined
20 Aug 2021
Posts
1,771
Location
Krypton
The difference is you think the repercussions should be an unwanted child. I think the repercussion should be the choice to have an abortion, which in itself isn't exactly a pleasant experience.
Yes we fundamentally disagree on that aspect.
As a whole? No, but again they want to regressive and have done for a long time.

All of those aren't to do with sexual reproduction etc, they are all to do with gender identity, which is to put it bluntly, ******.
 
Caporegime
Joined
9 May 2004
Posts
27,801
Location
Leafy outskirts of London
If someone isn't sensible about a deed that has potentially serious repercussions i.e a child, then maybe don't be stupid and refrain from sleeping with someone. Personal responsibility is a bitch isn't it.
Nothing like a man's view on women's issues.

All those incel yanks are elated though, as many women are basically stopping casual hook up culture, so now all the Chads won't be getting sex either and can join their little manchild echo chambers. /s
 
Top Bottom