Donald Trump has picked Brett Kavanaugh, a reliable right-wing conservative jurist, to replace swing justice Anthony Kennedy on the U.S. Supreme Court. This means Roe v. Wade is in jeopardy. But the U.S. is the only country in the world that relies on a court decision, one with faulty reasoning, for abortion rights. Why doesn’t the U.S. simply legalize abortion like so many European countries have done? Because Democrats were content not to press the issue.
Abortion Rights Are Doomed Now and It’s Largely the Democrats’ Fault
77 Comments. Leave new
Actually, Ted, the Right has completely taken over Danish politics. Fortunately however, they are currently frying other fish than the crusade to stop legal abortion – but who knows what the future will bring ?…
Henri
The Right has taken the first step to preserve Danish culture for Danes.
Did Clinton actually say that?
Europe does not have abortion on demand. There are many restrictions, such as waiting periods and mandatory counseling sessions to discuss issues such as infertility caused by abortion. Most European countries will not grant abortions after the first trimester.
In China, abortion is cheap and governmented-funded.
Europe has these restrictions because they recognize there is a baby in the womb. By the third week, there is a heart beat.
> Europe does not have abortion on demand.
Liar.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_law#Europe
> By the third week, there is a heart beat.
Liar: fifth week.
Not that it matters, your belief that “There is a a baby in the womb” is based on superstitious nonsense and a complete ignorance of human biology.
Isn’t it easy to make laws for other people? You’ll never have to dread a torn condom, never have a boyfriend try to punch a baby out of you, and never have to decide between a normal life and a life as an unwed, teenage mother.
«Europe does not have abortion on demand.» What a pleasure it is to hear people who don’t know fuck all about a subject expound upon it ! Here, for example, a link to the English-language version of the aricle on abortion in the health-care guide issued by the county government of Stockholm county (if desired, I can provide a link to the legal text itself ; I abstain from doing so in this post to avoid Ted’sobligatory «monitoring» process for posts containing more than one link). Note the rather explcit statement to the effect that
(later modified to state that this applies to the first 18 weeks of pregnancy, defined from the first missed menstural period, after which permission must be obtained from the National Board of Health and Welfare)….
As Denmark is specifically named in Ted’s cartoon, I can mention that abortion is free in that country up to and including the 12th week of pregnancy, after which permission must be obtained, but it would seem that it is not difficult to do so ; between 2012 and 2017 permission was granted in some 94 % of all cases…..
Certain posters to this forum seem to be followers of Mr Trump in more than one aspect ; they simply ignore that their falsehoods and misunderstandings are shown to be such and continue posting….
Better arguments for free abortion without limits as to how long a pregnancy has gone on than posters of this ilk would be hard to find….
Henri
The scariest time for Democrats was the first two years of the Obama presidency.
Democrats were expected to and could have passed laws in support of issues they campaigned on.
But if they did, after keeping their campaign promises (and their rhetorical implications) they wouldn’t have had any divisive issues to campaign on in future elections.
Democrats win by faking their status as an opposition party to Republicans, when in reality what they stand for is very close to what Republicans stand for.
The parties are each play Indispensable Enemies (Walter Karp) to each other, excepting that each wants to be favored by, and be closer to their common corporate financiers in order to win elections and keep their jobs.
That’s why there is such a poor correlation between what the majority of people want and the policies the people get from their government. These results are far from what would be expected from a government that functioned as a democracy.
Yes, the Democrats are to blame because they have no interests other than the personal interest of keeping their jobs while posing (rhetorically) as social warriors.
See Gilens and Page study.
https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf
“Despite the seemingly strong empirical support in
previous studies for theories of majoritarian democracy, our analyses suggest that majorities of the American
public actually have little influence over the policies our
government adopts. Americans do enjoy many features
central to democratic governance, such as regular elections,
freedom of speech and association, and a widespread
(if still contested) franchise. But we believe that if
policymaking is dominated by powerful business organizations
and a small number of affluent Americans, then
America’s claims to being a democratic society are seriously
threatened.”
> Why doesn’t the U.S. simply legalize abortion like so many European countries have done?
I dislike having laws to ‘legalize’ things – a dangerous precedent in The Land Ubba Free. The next step is “anything not mandatory is prohibited”
The *default* should be ‘legal’ – and the only reason to outlaw something is if it harms others. (THAT should have been enshrined in the constitution)
Abortion on demand is defined as abortion performed solely at the women’s request. The United States is one of the few countries in the world to have such unrestricted access to abortion. The reason for that is because if it were a matter of federal law, most politicians would not for for it. Their constituents, the American people, want some sort of restrictions.
Europe does not have abortion on demand. For example, in the U.K, two other doctors, besides the regular doctor, must sign off on the abortion before it is approved; in Sweden, a woman must get consent for an abortion after 18 weeks. There is no late-term abortion unless there are grave abnormalties. In Liechtenstein, there is no abortion on request, only if the mother or child are in grave danger.
In Catholic Europe, there are also restrictions. Usually, a woman cannot have an abortion past the first trimester. In Belgium, there is a mandatory 6 day waiting period and the woman must get counseling so that she is aware of future risks of infertility. France also has a mandatory wait period and in Italy, most doctors will not perform one.
Unfortunately, it is ignorant to depend on Wikipedia as a source of knowledge. One would be better off being widely read instead of hastily looking things up on a site that admits it is prone to error.
New Zealand has government-paid abortion on demand. It’s a civilized country, Canada as no restrictions whatsoever. Yes, in Sweden it’s *entirely* up to the woman up 4 1/2 months, and then it’s still available for cause.
OTOH, the US most assuredly does not have freely-available abortion, let alone ‘on demand’ – and the superstitious whack jobs are doing their best to stop the few avenues left open.
In general, the more superstitious a country is the more restrictions they place on women’s freedoms. e.g. “Catholic Europe” – or even worse, Catholic South America. Abortion is also severely restricted in Africa and the Middle East. (doesn’t it make you feel proud to be in such illustrious company? Here you thought they were primitive savages)
> Unfortunately, it is ignorant to depend on Wikipedia as a source of knowledge
Unfortunately, you’ve got it backwards. Wikipedia is not a source of knowledge, rather it is an easy reference for already-documented knowledge. If you take exception to anything, you can always get it changed via the proper documentation – or post a refutation here. Since you chose to attack the medium instead, I assume you have no such documentation.
Let me put this as gently as I can: you are a serial liar with a severe reading disability. For all its faults, Wikipedia is far, far more credible.
When I teach health, I put up the Fetal Development Chart so that students may see the development of the baby week by week.
The nervous system is one of the first systems to develop. The heart begins beating at 5 weeks (pushed the wrong key; it happens.) By the 6th week, the baby’s heart beats 150 times a minute and brain formation begins. By week seven, the face is starting to form.
Question: Why do pregnant women refer to the life in their womb as ‘my baby’ and not my fetus?
> Question: Why do pregnant women refer to the life in their womb as ‘my baby’ and not my fetus?
That’s a complex question (AKA “trick question”) (Nice rhetorical skills, there, Awesome Teacher. )
The proper answer is ‘they don’t.’
Those that don’t want to be pregnant do not say “my baby.” Those that do are the only ones that do say “my baby” – and more power to them.
Question: Why would a health teacher say ‘baby’ and ‘womb’ when the proper terms are ‘fetus’ (‘blastocyst ‘) and ‘uterus’?
It’s your JOB to teach science, not superstition. Save the sermonizing for Sunday school.
Again, Europe, even Sweden and Denmark, do not allow unrestricted access to abortion as does the United States. There are limits after roughly the first trimester even though they may not be enforced.
In any event, abortion is a scare tactic Democrats are fond of using. With long-term injectable birth control and emergency contraception readily available, abortion becomes an unnecessary and risky procedure.
We can agree that prevention is certainly better than emergency measures after the fact. So, if you had free reign in your “health” class, would you teach the boys how & when to use condoms? Or would you teach abstinence? If the only pharmacist in town refused to dispense morning after pills, would you see him fired in favor of a less-superstitious person?
> Europe, even Sweden and Denmark, do not allow unrestricted access to abortion
Links,or it didn’t happen.
> do not allow unrestricted access to abortion as does the United States
Leaving aside your misrepresentation of Scandinavian laws for the nonce:
What is this “United States” of which you speak? It sure as hell isn’t this one. You wack jobs keep passing laws, bombing medical clinics and shooting doctors. Most poor, rural women do not have any access to abortion whatsoever.
Some states have limits as low as six weeks. Hell, at six weeks she might not even know she’s pregnant. Some are at twelve, and of course you guys have jugged everything up with invasive ultrasounds and counseling and waiting periods and only one clinic in the entire state and oh, gee whiz, look at that, time’s run out!
Abortion is banned in most countries around the world, including all Islamic state. No one on this blog is suggesting these countries are backward and superstitious?
> No one on this blog is suggesting these countries are backward and superstitious?
You are. Some of the rest of us are pointing out that anti-abortionists in this country are just as backwards and superstitious as those in other countries.
> Abortion is banned in most countries around the world
Liar.
According to WHO two-thirds of the world’s women have access to abortion. There are only five countries which will deny a woman an abortion to save her life.
As always, one wonders why those on the side of TRVTH tell so many lies …
This is why I call AT American Turd.
“The abortion controversy is important for what it says about our stance toward procreation and children altogether…along with a woman’s right to choose there must be respect for life.”
Leon Kass, M.D., PhD., Professor of Bioethics, University of Chicago
> there must be respect for life
That’s another point on which we can agree. We can also agree that a fifteen-year-old rape victim is a human being. Where we disagree is on whether microscopic ball of undifferentiated cells is a human being.
Leon K’ass should not style himself as a bioethicist, as his “ethics” are firmly entrenched in superstition, not biology.
@CH
Well said.
Abortion is banned in 26 countries.
Unless necessary to save a woman’s life, 39 countries.
In New Zealand, abortion is allowed up to twenty weeks with two medical doctors approving.
When Justice Henry Blackmun came up with an extra-constitutional right to abortion, he admitted that it was arbitrary and on shaky legal ground.
AT: “Abortion is banned in 26 countries”
Links, or it didn’t happen.
But just for argument’s sake, let’s pretend your numbers are correct.
There are 195 countries in the world. (give or take.) So, 26 would be … uh … 13.3%
AT: “Abortion is banned in most countries around the world”
Can you document that 13.3% constitutes “most”?
Let’s return to the actual subject – women’s right to control their own bodies.
This is what we’re trying to prevent:
TRIGGER WARNING EXPLICIT
If we outlaw abortions, only outlaws will perform abortions. More girls will die from punctured uteruses, more girls will commit suicide, more babies will be left in dumpsters, and more unwanted children will be born into the world.
Those that outlaw abortion will have that innocent blood on their hands; not that they would ever acknowledge it, let alone take responsibility.
TRIGGER WARNING, EXPLICIT:
http://www.sapphireblue.com/25years/
Let us also note that Ted as well as all the people/digital personas commenting in this thread are men.
(While I am not fully convinced how faithfully some of these personas mirror reality – of this I am absolutely certain 😉 )
Of course we still can talk about any and all aspects of the issue that the excellent cartoon raises (and foreshadows), but it does feel we may be missing an important perspective here…
@Andreas
Decent people, of both sexes, can have moral, ethical, or religious views that conflict with abortion. The point is to have a discussion that avoids name-calling.
What has not come up so far is a father’s rights. Men have gone to court to try to prevent their partner from having an abortion, to little avail.
Once the baby is born, fathers have rights; if the child is in the woman’s womb, fathers have no rights whatsoever. Expect that dilemma to be revisited in the courts.
@AT (American Turd)
“The point is to have a discussion that avoids name-calling.”
But I like name calling.
That’s (almost) my favorite thing about Trump.
Hello again, andreas5
I do welcome your mellifluous voice (as it strikes me), even as I am now with the stink of wrestling a bear.
@ Glenn
very true, we may imagine how the voices would sound for any poster here – how is it that this has never occurred to me before?
Much like Anne-with-an-E of Green Gables, I feel a world of infinite possibilities opening up in the imagination 😉
With the increase in the variety of birth control and the increase in its accessibility, abortion will become unnecessary. It is already on the decline in developed countries. This issue is a dud.
@AT (American Turd)
“This issue is a dud.”
That’s why assholes like you should find another issue to get sanctimonious about.
Abortion has NEVER been a problem in the United States for the wealthy. If a Kennedy, Bush, Clinton, Obama or (fill in the name of your political dynasty/favorite politician) needs an abortion, that abortion will happen. It will be done quickly, safely, efficiently, and on the taxpayer dime. This is, like many issues in the political arena, one that is mislabeled as being something other than what it really is: economics/class. Look at the issue in a broader perspective. The purpose of such profound hostility to abortion makes little sense, except when viewed as part of a methodology for keeping the underclass trapped. When looked at that way, it all makes perfect sense.
If a Kennedy, Bush, Clinton, Obama talks about political issues at a family gathering, that would be expected.
But most American families seem to avoid these discussions as if in recognition that such participation would be tantamount to acting above one’s class.
Raise this issue at a typical sub-dynastic family gathering and the response would likely be on the order of “What’s that got to do with baseball ?”
@alex – true, dat.
I’ll add that politically, it’s red meat. Anti-abortion politicritters like Tim Murphy change their tune when it gets up close and personal.
As for the great unwashed & unlearned, it’s most definitely mislabeled. They don’t give a damn about unbornded baby child persons, instead they want to punish wanton women.
In addition to the interminable wars of foreign aggression it wages ’round the world, the US ruling class wages an equally interminable class war at home. Surprise, surprise !…
Henri
Half of all pregnancies in the United States are unintended. Nearly half of them result in abortion. Half of the women report that they did not use contraception the month that they became pregnant. Three-fourths of the women cite affordability as their reason for abortion; they could not afford a child. Source: CDC
Abortion is a class issue. The rich simply do not have the unwanted pregnancies and hence the demand for abortion that their lower-class sisters do.
If their lower-class sisters had paid better intention in Health Class, they would not be trudging off to an abortion clinic. Contraception is cheap and readily available.
Girls, pay attention!
Paid better attention in Health Class
Gosh, that would make just a whole lot more sense if the nearest health teacher taught science instead of superstition.
How many of these ‘lower-class’ sisters are the products of abstinence-only education? How many were brought up thinking that prayer beat hormones? How many took purity pledges?
There’s a reason that the Babble Belt has higher-than-average rates of teen pregnancy and STDs.
The CDC also reports that black women are five times as likely to have an abortion as white women; Hispanic women are twice as likely. There is a racial component to abortion as well.
Lakisha! Consuela! Pay attention!
Good morning AT
You racist. misogynist, asshole moron, Nazi, inciter of domestic terrorism.
I would explain to you how all this fits, but you are too poorly equipped to comprehend, so I will see if you can be herded like equally stupid cattle can, by obnoxious noises.
Conservative blacks and black churches oppose abortion, calling it ‘black genocide.’ Black Lives Matter was at the pro-life March in Washington this past year.
Yes, AT, you have discovered a truth: godders are crazy regardless of their skin color.
> Conservative blacks and black churches oppose abortion
Is there some sort of point to this enumeration of superstitious misogynists? We’ve already agreed that superstitious people are more likely to subjugate women. No argument, no disagreement, nothing to discuss, case closed.
The real question is whether they *should* subjugate women, and the real answer is ‘no.’
Yoruba Richen’s documentary, “Anti-Abortion Crusaders” argues that abortion is medical racism and that Planned Parenthood pushes blacks into having abortions at higher rates than whites.
Is Yoruba Richen as big a liar as you are?
> Yoruba Richen’s documentary, “Anti-Abortion Crusaders” argues that abortion is medical racism
LIAR!!!
Perjurer.
Phony.
Fabricator.
Fibber.
Falsifier.
Misleader.
Prevaricator.
Deceiver.
Trickster.
Deluder.
False Witness.
That documentary isn’t about Planned Parenthood – it’s about anti-abortionist conservatives who target blacks. Yoruba is a PRO-CHOICE activist, exposing so-called “Pregnancy Crisis Centers” for the deceitful and manipulative frauds they truly are.
You’ve claimed to answer all questions. Here’s one you chronically avoid, “If you are on the side of TRVTH, why do you need to tell so many LIES?”
Here’s a new one: “Why do ‘pregnancy crisis centers’ need to hide behind a facade of LIES?”
But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, AND ALL LIARS, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death. Revelation 21:8
Maybe Speedos come in asbestos. You should be buried in a pair.
No one has an unlimited right to do anything they want, including with their own body.
Roe v Wade was an attempt to balance the interests of a woman with the interests of the state.
> No one has an unlimited right to do anything they want, including with their own body.
There is nothing on this planet which is more ‘yours’ than your own body. You would grant The State control even over that?
You won’t grant The State control over your guns … yet you’ll grant it control of your own body? Your guns are more important to you than your own body?
I call bullshit.
If The State told you to cut off your undersized balls, would you do it? That would undeniably be a boon to society – it would prevent you from enslaving your girlfriend should she get pregnant.
> interests of a woman with the interests of the state.
You’re confused. Again. It’s communism which puts the interests of The State above the interests of the individual. Here in The United States of America, we value the rights of the individual over the powers of The State.
Nicolae Ceaușescu believed women’s bodies belonged to the state (Romania).
He ordered women to increase the population of Romania and subjected women to monthly physical examinations to make sure women were not aborting or otherwise failing to conceive.
This is what happens when an authoritarian state treats women as breeding stock.
AT, fan of Hitler and Ceaușescu, or merely an inmate of a psychiatric ward.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/tragedy-leads-study-severe-child-neglect/
“In a misguided effort to enhance economic productivity, Nicolae Ceausescu decreed in 1966 that Romania would develop its “human capital” via a government-enforced mandate to increase the country’s population. Ceauşescu, Romania’s leader from 1965 to 1989, banned contraception and abortions and imposed a “celibacy tax” on families that had fewer than five children. State doctors—the menstrual police—conducted gynecologic examinations in the workplace of women of childbearing age to see whether they were producing sufficient offspring. The birth rate initially skyrocketed. Yet because families were too poor to…”
@Glenn – so what? The important thing is that the unbornded baby child persons get bornded.
Who care what happens to them after after that? Blown up, beaten up, starved, left in dumpsters – no problemo, so long as they get bornded.
Leon Kass: “There is no unlimited right.”
Kass is the author of many books, including Towards a More Natural Science; The Beginning of Wisdom; and Leading a Worthy Life. He is a professor of bioethics at the University of Chicago. He is also chairman of the President’s Council on Bioethics.
> [K’ass] is also chairman of the President’s Council on Bioethics.
Another strike against him. The pResident appointed a guy who hates the environment for head of the EPA; a guy who hates labor for the head of the Labor Department; and a Goldman-Sachs exec for Secretary of the Treasury.
It’s no surprise he appointed a guy with no understanding of ethics or biology to his Council on Bioethics.
Next he’ll appoint an astrologer to head up NASA and a faith-healer as Surgeon General.
No wonder this wretch is so miserable.
His faith is all in lies.
Only a sheltered being could have had so little contact with the world and have learned so little about it.
It is as if AT is a resident of a psychiatric ward. As if his so-called “students” whom he so denigrates are really his inmates, over whom he imagines his superiority, and whom he then resents for their failure to acknowledge it.
AT is the embodiment of all the lies he has gullibly accepted (absorbed) as unquestionably true.
If he is not an inmate but a true representative of a new normal, then the inmates must have taken over the asylum where he lives.
On ultrasound, parents can see the smiles and claps of their baby at 18 weeks. Science is pro-life.
LIAR!
That’s as stupid as that video that supposedly shows a fetus *swimming* away from an abortion.
A NEWBORN won’t start smiling for several weeks. They have no concept of clapping whatsoever, and have to be TAUGHT somewhere between six and twelve months.
Science is neither pro-life nor anti-life, it is, however, pro-facts.
@AT
Anyone could get a glimpse of your thought process by looking through a colonoscope.
Contraception is the key predictor as to whether women will have an abortion. Contraception needs to be used consistently.
Latrina!
> Contraception needs to be used consistently.
Which brings us back to yet another unanswered question.
If you had free reign in your health class, would you teach boys how & when to use condoms? Or would you preach abstinence?
You evaded it the first time I asked, saying “I teach the curriculum” – which leads me to conclude I’m right as usual.
Unanswered Query: Should fathers have rights to their unborn children?
Dude – not only are you behind by about twenty answers at this point, but I’ve already answered that one. I’ll try again, maybe you should take notes this time.
I have no idea what an ‘unborn children’ is, so I’ll assume you mean ‘fetus’ you really should try to improve your vocabulary.
What you are proposing is that a woman should have no more control over her own body than a brood mare. She is a sex slave, owned body and soul by any man who slips off a condom while she isn’t looking.
Your answer is not only ‘no’ but “Hell no, what the fuck is wrong with you?” You talk a lot about ‘barbarians’ – anyone who considers his wife’s body to be his property is a barbarian, unfit to live in civilized society.
Now, are you going to answer unto others as you expect them to answer unto you? Or are you going to keep pretending you’re not reading my questions in the fist place?
The NYT has an article today about the lack of obstetric care in rural American areas.
A woman had to drive a 100 miles to have her twins. The woman earns $8.50 an hour as a health aide; has no partner; and lives with her mother who sleeps on the couch.
Crazy H commented on the “born” babies tossed into dumpsters, but can we not raise the question as to whether this woman in the Times article should be having children at all? What kind of life are those kids going to have? Should the indigent be allowed to reproduce and why is that not a legitimate question to raise?
Gee whiz Teacher, I guess I’m going to have to add one more LIE to your tally: The one where you said you answered all questions.
Here’s all three of your questions answered.
> should be having children at all?
She should not be having children.
> What kind of life?
The kids will (probably) be poor.
> Should the indigent be allowed to reproduce?
Let me get this straight, a few minutes ago you wanted the government to force people to have babies … and now you want the government to prevent people from having babies?
That’s rather hypocritical.
It’s also abhorrent. I absolutely, positively, will not grant the government the power over who gets to reproduce. However, the Nazis would approve, as would China and North Korea.
> and why is that not a legitimate question to raise?
Given that people of color are disproportionately poor in this country, you’re really talking genocide. No surprise there, Adolf. And just out of curiosity, how much did you pay for your KKK robes? Did you get one of the good ones, or just cut up an old sheet?
So … let me propose a different approach:
1) Contraception available free.
2) Abortion on demand – also free.
3) A minimum wage considerably north of $8.50.
4) Education (Girls don’t have to be mommies, babies are a lot of work, and abortion is not a sin)
5) Government sponsored child care and/or assistance to single mothers.
But those things would require compassion and empathy for your fellow man. I’m not surprised that they didn’t occur to you, so I’ll appeal to your sense of self interest: Condoms are cheaper than babies. Feeding poor kids is cheaper than incarcerating adults. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
If you had read carefully, you would see that American Teacher has not given a position on abortion, just raised questions and stated facts.
If your memory serves, you would recall that AT also said several posts ago that there should be an abortion clinic on every street corner.
No, I’m not going to look it up. You’re the one with time to pore over my comments.
I have indeed noted that the American Teacher has avoided stating its opinion – even when asked. I do not remember a post about a clinic on every corner, it it exists it isn’t on this page. (ten seconds with search bar, not exactly a huge investment in time)
It has dropped a lot of hints, told a lot of lies, and generally given a negative impression – but it’s carefully avoided revealing any conclusions or motivations.
This is pretty common behavior among racists, fascists, homophobes and other haters who don’t have the balls to stand up and admit what they are.
So rather than beating around the bush, why doesn’t it tell us directly?
Should abortion be legal and freely available?
Should a man have a say over whether a woman has an abortion?
Should schools teach safe sex or abstinence?
(Note that in the absence of answers, I will draw my own conclusions based entirely on what it has posted. It won’t like them, but neither will it contradict them.)
In commenting on this article, the Awesome Teacher has proposed genocide, government controlled breeding, and that a man should have more control over a woman’s uterus than the woman herself. He’s incidentally told a whole bunch of ginormous lies along the way.
He’s also complained about name-calling.
Let’s open this up for discussion. Can anyone think of a way in which The Awesome Teacher could avoid being called names? Anyone?
In Buck v Bell, SCOTUS ruled that sterilization of the ‘unfit’ was constitutional. Chief Justice Holmes famously wrote, “Three generations of imbeciles is enough.”
To my knowledge, the ruling has not been overturned.
Did Holmes have a point? I have students with ten siblings who are unsure who their fathers are. Doesn’t the state have a compelling interest to stop this dimwitted behavior?
Why yes, I already stated my opinion that you should be sterilized to prevent you from enslaving women. Preventing another imbecile from being born is just icing on the cake.
Uzbekistan, the largest country in Central Asia, population 30 million, has a forced sterilization program. 80% of doctors believe that after two children, women should be sterilized as a means to limit population growth.
Why are people who murder pregnant women charged with double homicide?
We hold these truths to be self evident:
1) Awesome Teacher would outlaw abortion given the chance.
2) Awesome Teacher believes that a male owns a female’s body.
3) Awesome Teacher would teach abstinence over contraception.
4) Awesome Teacher doesn’t give a damn about the pain and suffering caused by 1-3
5) If the government castration van pulled up in front of Awesome Teacher’s house, Awesome Teacher would quietly submit to sterilization for the good of the state.
Since Awesome Teacher has LIED about his policy of answering questions, I am free to do so. It is, of course, free to contradict anything I post.
In the Philippines, during Easter week, some celebrants crucify themselves in order to experience Christ’s passion. While the state and the church advise against it, they do not ban it.
If, in the name of doing what you wanted with your own body, celebrants decided to do that here, does the state have a compelling interest in banning this practice?
So, you want The State to interfere in matters of religion as well?
If they told you that you couldn’t practice ritual cannibalism, would you comply?
(There are two more questions you won’t answer while insisting that you do answer questions. What is that now? Twenty-five or so?)
&btw, you can stop pretending that you’re not arguing what you’re actually arguing. You verified it by not responding to the post below.
Repeat: You’re not fooling anybody. We decoded your euphemisms and intercepted your dog whistles long ago. I don’t think your kind realize just how silly you look to sane people. By pretending you’re talking about something other than what you’re talking about, you undermine your own arguments.
And that’s a good thing. Also entertaining.
We live in highly regulated nation states which require licenses for practically everything. You need a license to drive, hunt, fish, sail, be an electrician, plumber, nurse, doctor, abortion provider, and teach.
The one thing you don’t need a license for is to be a parent. You are allowed to breed as thoughtlessly and recklessly as you please and it is called a reproductive right.
> You are allowed to breed as thoughtlessly and recklessly as you please and it is called a reproductive right.
You’re repeating yourself. You already said you were willing to let The State cut your balls off. We’re done. Game over. Nothing to see here, move along.
Mary Elizabeth William’s, “So What if Abortion Ends Life? It’s Never Stopped Me from Being Pro-Choice” Slate, January 2013.
Williams argues that a fetus is a baby, but the wishes of the mother always trump the child. “She’s the boss,” says Williams.