Roe v. Wade overturned?

B00Mer

Keep Calm and Carry On
Sep 6, 2008
44,795
7,268
113
Rent Free in Your Head
www.getafteritmedia.com
So men should be held responsible for what women freely do with their bodies and their rights? Can you at least tell me you're a sex addict so I can pretend that I'm helping to pay for someone's mental health care?

Well she’s a Groomer, and most groomers are sex addicts..

She’s trying to make it everyone else’s responsibility for her actions.. typical Liberal
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Serryah

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
49,840
3,526
113
Washington DC
So men should be held responsible for what women freely do with their bodies and their rights? Can you at least tell me you're a sex addict so I can pretend that I'm helping to pay for someone's mental health care?
Well, it's large-majority male legislatures passing these laws, so I'd say they took responsibility from people who didn't want them to have it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Serryah

Serryah

Senate Member
Dec 3, 2008
6,465
1,144
113
New Brunswick
Well, it's large-majority male legislatures passing these laws, so I'd say they took responsibility from people who didn't want them to have it.

And that's part of the point really.

Lots of this IS coming from male legislatures and the input of women, and opinions from women, isn't considered at all.

And it's dictating what women are to do with their bodies.

If that's the case, then why can we not dictate what men must do with their bodies too?

Lots of people seem to miss the point though - EVERY time the issue about abortion, birth control, or women's health in general comes up, there's this rush by males to dictate how women should 'handle' these things. If those who protest it were really for "freedom", then they'd be all for the choice of abortion, birth control, plan be and everything else to do with women's health care, because... it's up to the woman and her doctor, NOT woman, doctor, and Joe Public. And as for the "I don't want my taxes-" excuse... well, those same women pay the same taxes into the same health care so... that line of thought needs to just stop too, cause it's not just the taxes of the anti-abortionist that get 'used'. Want to pick and choose where your taxes go, help change the tax system so every taxpayer CAN make that choice; until then, STFU or move to a country where you have to pay for it all on your own. THEN you can bitch.

This is a control issue, plain and simple, of insecure, sometimes to mostly religious wackadoo's telling the "lesser" human what they can and can't do.

And again, MEN are just as responsible, so why isn't there a push to make them more responsible? This blame-shifting of "It's the woman who chooses" misses the point entirely. It DOES take two to tango, it DOES take a woman AND man to make a child, but why does it always have to be on a woman TO be the 'responsible' one?

To reiterate though, I don't think abortion should be for any reason BUT medical or extreme circumstances. It absolutely should NOT be a 'birth control' option. That said, it's also not my fucking business what another woman does or doesn't do. No one is really "pro-abortion" but it's pro CHOICE and called such for a reason. It could also be called the real Pro Life, because seems those who are the usual 'pro life' only are so until the kid is born, after that, who gives a fuck.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ocean Breeze

pgs

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 29, 2008
24,357
5,201
113
B.C.
Yet only a couple of months ago the candidate for a seat on the highest court in the land couldn’t tell us the definition of a woman . And neither could you , are you sucking and blowing at the same time ?
 

pgs

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 29, 2008
24,357
5,201
113
B.C.

Jinentonix

Executive Branch Member
Sep 6, 2015
9,789
4,165
113
Olympus Mons
And that's part of the point really.

Lots of this IS coming from male legislatures and the input of women, and opinions from women, isn't considered at all.

And it's dictating what women are to do with their bodies.
Uh huh. Rachel Harder was selected by a non-partisan vote to Chair the Committee for the Status of Canadian Women, or something like that. Rachel Harder is pro-life. Prince Groper and gang walked out on her and ORDERED a new choice be made because Rachel Harder, a woman, had a different opinion on abortion than Groper, a man-child. Now let's say Rachel Harder was the PM. Would you be fine with her forcing HER views on abortion onto the general public? She is a woman after all.
If that's the case, then why can we not dictate what men must do with their bodies too?

Lots of people seem to miss the point though - EVERY time the issue about abortion, birth control, or women's health in general comes up, there's this rush by males to dictate how women should 'handle' these things. If those who protest it were really for "freedom", then they'd be all for the choice of abortion, birth control, plan be and everything else to do with women's health care, because... it's up to the woman and her doctor, NOT woman, doctor, and Joe Public. And as for the "I don't want my taxes-" excuse... well, those same women pay the same taxes into the same health care so... that line of thought needs to just stop too, cause it's not just the taxes of the anti-abortionist that get 'used'. Want to pick and choose where your taxes go, help change the tax system so every taxpayer CAN make that choice; until then, STFU or move to a country where you have to pay for it all on your own. THEN you can bitch.

This is a control issue, plain and simple, of insecure, sometimes to mostly religious wackadoo's telling the "lesser" human what they can and can't do.

And again, MEN are just as responsible, so why isn't there a push to make them more responsible? This blame-shifting of "It's the woman who chooses" misses the point entirely. It DOES take two to tango, it DOES take a woman AND man to make a child, but why does it always have to be on a woman TO be the 'responsible' one?

To reiterate though, I don't think abortion should be for any reason BUT medical or extreme circumstances. It absolutely should NOT be a 'birth control' option. That said, it's also not my fucking business what another woman does or doesn't do. No one is really "pro-abortion" but it's pro CHOICE and called such for a reason. It could also be called the real Pro Life, because seems those who are the usual 'pro life' only are so until the kid is born, after that, who gives a fuck.
I think you've convinced yourself that everyone who is against abortion on demand is against abortion in principle. Outside of the religious whackjobs with extremist views, not too many people really wanna deny abortions for genuine medical reasons, after all a doctor's first responsibility is to the potential mother. And I think you'll find plenty of support for abortions in cases of rape as well. Nor do I think you'll find very many unsympathetic Canadians unwilling to fund abortions through taxes in those cases.
It's the deeply religious mindset that's the biggest road block and I have a perfect and somewhat personal example of how blind religion can make you. One of my sisters is only my half-sister. Her mother died giving birth when she was 5 or 6. When her mother got pregnant the second time her doctor told her that she should terminate the pregnancy. Her chances of surviving the pregnancy and giving birth were slim to none and the baby's wasn't much better. She refused the abortion because she was a devout Catholic. Even with HER own life at serious risk, her idiotic religious views dictated her own death, leaving behind a little girl who was seriously fucked up by it.

I also think you'll find that a pretty sizable majority of Canadian aren't against birth control either. But for Christ sake, considering how inexpensive it is we still hear some women whining about how the gumbymint should pay for it.
Unless you're so goddam poor you're making soup out of rocks and grass, birth control is very affordable. The my body my right argument doesn't fly when you expect everyone else to take responsibility for them, either proactively or reactively.

Let me ask you this question from an American perspective again. The right to keep and bear arms is clearly enshrined as a right. Just like [taxpayer funded] abortions are, apparently. So does that mean if I require medical care due to my negligence and irresponsibility engaging in my 2nd Amendment rights that the American taxpayer should be on the hook for my medical expenses? My firearm, my right, right?

Lastly, the draft says nothing about overturning Roe v Wade. It simply puts that decision back in the hands of the states who are supposed to be the ones running whatever passes for a health care system in their state. Federal govts in the US and Canada have been steadily eroding state and provincial autonomy when it comes to state and provincial matters. While at the same time relieving themselves of accountability by having things like Supreme Courts, Human Rights kangaroo tribunals and the UN, entities that aren't accountable to the taxpaying voter in the least, make decisions for them. Particularly the kind that might make the govt unpopular.
 

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
49,840
3,526
113
Washington DC
I think you and Serryah are both right.

You are correct that only a tiny fringe want to prevent all abortion, even if it kills woman and foetus.

What they really want to do is punish women for having sex. It's the old slut/stud double standard that is deeply rooted in "the religious mindset." As are, apparently, cruelty and paedophilia.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Serryah

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
101,212
6,869
113
Moccasin Flats
Uh huh. Rachel Harder was selected by a non-partisan vote to Chair the Committee for the Status of Canadian Women, or something like that. Rachel Harder is pro-life. Prince Groper and gang walked out on her and ORDERED a new choice be made because Rachel Harder, a woman, had a different opinion on abortion than Groper, a man-child. Now let's say Rachel Harder was the PM. Would you be fine with her forcing HER views on abortion onto the general public? She is a woman after all.

I think you've convinced yourself that everyone who is against abortion on demand is against abortion in principle. Outside of the religious whackjobs with extremist views, not too many people really wanna deny abortions for genuine medical reasons, after all a doctor's first responsibility is to the potential mother. And I think you'll find plenty of support for abortions in cases of rape as well. Nor do I think you'll find very many unsympathetic Canadians unwilling to fund abortions through taxes in those cases.
It's the deeply religious mindset that's the biggest road block and I have a perfect and somewhat personal example of how blind religion can make you. One of my sisters is only my half-sister. Her mother died giving birth when she was 5 or 6. When her mother got pregnant the second time her doctor told her that she should terminate the pregnancy. Her chances of surviving the pregnancy and giving birth were slim to none and the baby's wasn't much better. She refused the abortion because she was a devout Catholic. Even with HER own life at serious risk, her idiotic religious views dictated her own death, leaving behind a little girl who was seriously fucked up by it.

I also think you'll find that a pretty sizable majority of Canadian aren't against birth control either. But for Christ sake, considering how inexpensive it is we still hear some women whining about how the gumbymint should pay for it.
Unless you're so goddam poor you're making soup out of rocks and grass, birth control is very affordable. The my body my right argument doesn't fly when you expect everyone else to take responsibility for them, either proactively or reactively.

Let me ask you this question from an American perspective again. The right to keep and bear arms is clearly enshrined as a right. Just like [taxpayer funded] abortions are, apparently. So does that mean if I require medical care due to my negligence and irresponsibility engaging in my 2nd Amendment rights that the American taxpayer should be on the hook for my medical expenses? My firearm, my right, right?

Lastly, the draft says nothing about overturning Roe v Wade. It simply puts that decision back in the hands of the states who are supposed to be the ones running whatever passes for a health care system in their state. Federal govts in the US and Canada have been steadily eroding state and provincial autonomy when it comes to state and provincial matters. While at the same time relieving themselves of accountability by having things like Supreme Courts, Human Rights kangaroo tribunals and the UN, entities that aren't accountable to the taxpaying voter in the least, make decisions for them. Particularly the kind that might make the govt unpopular.
Abortion isnt a Right. It was merely decriminalized.