Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, eliminating constitutional right to abortion

If they cannot afford a kid and the wife has to grapple with the decision to have an abortion… yes that’s irresponsible.

Please try and go one post without misrepresenting me.

 

This is just getting nonsensical.

So athiests/agnostic’s who are against abortion are against abortion because of religion…. Which they don’t believe in…

That’s a pretty crazy claim there Lou.

 

Then you are in a **** situation and everyone feels sorry for you, but also a lot of people look down on you and think, "Who would have ever believed that person was just going to cover the loser's losses?"

People do that a lot in the D&D.

So you want abortions limited to suspected adulteresses and performed by priests who provide magic potions that do nothing if the woman is faithful but curse her to both have a miscarriage and become misshapen and gangrenous and a curse among her people if she was slutting around? Not a very progressive stance, but better than life under Roe I suppose.

Technically he is saying even married people having sex is irresponsible if and only if they are not in a position to be able to deal with having a kid. Desire for children is not part of that calculus.

 

I'm not representing you one bit. I don't think you know what it means to be irresponsible. If every action that leads to a decision one has to grapple with is irresponsible - that's just nuts.

So if someone goes on multiple job interviews and gets multiple offers and has to grapple with that, they are irresponsible??? Wtf

 

Ok, that's not much better even if that's what he is saying, and I am not sure he is. Basically, if you are poor, don't have sex, even if you are married. Spurious logic at best.

 

@HTM

Is the responsible "exercising of the sexual faculties" of two unmarried people wrong, in your book?

 

Your point was that the bible (specifically the Old Testament, the Pentateuch, the Torah) allows for abortion. Not really. It allows for a man who believes his wife was cheating on him to bring her before the priest to be publicly shamed. To have her infidelity known to the community, be given a potion which may cause a miscarriage but also disfigure her and remove her from her husband to be a burden upon her family as the dirty cheater she is. There was no provision for a woman to decide: this isn't a great time to have a baby, I want to focus on my career, let's just get rid of this burden and move on with my life. The bible also promotes a man killing thousands of people (but it is to protect the chosen people), a man being willing to kill his son (but only to prove his devotion to God), mindless submission to authority (but only divine authority) and a hundred other lessons that become perverse devoid of their context.

Poor people shouldn't have kids they can't afford to take care of. What is wrong with this logic?

 

surprisingly, 'states rights' has no real room in an orwellian, theocratic rule

 

If the use of the sexual faculties leads someone to grapple with abortion…something which is a very traumatic thing that can haunt a woman for the rest of their life… then they shouldn’t be having sex.

The analogy to someone grappling with a job interview is dumb.

 

Your whole premise is dumb, my analogy just points out how dumb. Like you know anything about what a woman goes through.

 

That's funny.. as if you know any better me.

Everything I've suggested in this thread has been with women and children in foremost in mind. They are the ones who, usually, end up the victims of our culture of casual and irresponsible sex. The women struggling with abortion, the children growing up without fathers etc etc.

The gang of Marquis' De Sade in here are the ones telling you, "Do whatever you want, you can just get an abortion, It's just a clump of cells, nothing bad can happen from the use of ones sexual faculties" - these people are the ones who have it all wrong. How much suffering has resulted from this mentality? It's disgusting. These people have no shame. No matter how many people are left broken in the wake of their ideology around human sexuality.

 

Except what if this was someone you knew very well, was in a romantic relationship with and otherwise trusted?

Again y'all are calling women irresponsible when how exactly are women supposed to know ahead of time that a seemingly otherwise caring relationship would fall apart.

 

He doesn't know any better but the majority of women do disagree with your opinions and more align with his.

You know, the anti-abortion crowd would be a lot more popular if they supported contraception, since they don't we know your true purpose and you make it VERY clear here.

Your true purpose is to control the sex lives of women and to try and make them live up to the standards of some make believe book that has terrible standards in the first place.

 

You're again blaming my ex and other women. You're asking for them somehow know things they couldn't know at the time.

Marriage isn't fool proof why your solutions of just saying get married is the responsible thing doesn't work. If I recall right someone posted here early that even many married couples have abortions.

Do you have stats supporinting that you don't think many husbands didn't abandon their families over pregnancy? Anyway the fact that we have Deadbeat dads show that there is a problem with husbands abandoning families.

 

Idk how this would even hold up, even with this SCOTUS.