Drlee wrote:I guess you are just stuck on stupid. You talk about lies and then keep telling this one.
The SCOTUS did not remove a single right from anyone. WOMEN can still have abortions in every state. They must direct their law makers to ensure that they can. The SCOTUS did not and will not stop them. If there is any removal of a privilege (for except in one state there is no right to an abortion) it is the state that is doing it, not the SCOTUS.
If you want to see this as something other than a removal of rights, that is your privilege.
The people who are losing this right see it differently.
So do many lawmakers, judges, and other people.
Nonsense. Just another one of your diversions.
Let me know when you have read the opinion and arrive at page 61.
Also note that one of my opponents in this thread has already confirmed the misinformation.
I think you are angry and lashing out at me. I think your use of the term "pregnant people" is a childish slam on women. I think you know that I have done nothing on this thread but educate women and those men who support the privilege on how to overturn laws they see as draconian. You are disingenuous or careless when you try to denigrate me as if I was the problem. I believe in a woman's right to have an abortion within limits.
You just dismissed a discussion on the rights of pregnant people as irrelevant.
Are you now agreeing with me that they are relevant? good.
No they didn't. The states did that. The court was moot on a woman's right to an abortion.
No. States cannot overturn legal precedents. Only courts can do that.
Not really. You should learn to read the studies. And not in the US. But again.
I believe @Godstud just quoted evidence supporting the claim that jurisdictions outlawing abortion have just as many abortions as jurisdictions that allow it.
You are irrationally angry. It is not like you to degrade women. I am sorry you feel that people who have unprotected sex when they do not want to have children are "sluts". I don't. I think it is pretty stupid to have unprotected sex when one does not want to have a child but that is not a moral judgment.
Note that you are the one who keeps bringing up their sex life as a justification for removing their rights.
How is this not a method of controlling sexual behaviour?
Off topic. Please start a thread about welfare and universal health care. Then we can have a robust discussion about this topic.
I will go off topic with you to point out that there is very substantial support for woman's prenatal health in many places. In my own state, which bans abortion in almost every case, we have free healthcare for the poor and direct money payments to raise children which is not dependent on any kind of "moral clause". In the US there is a child tax credit and there are direct federal payments to people below a certain income who have a child. And there is foster care for the child of a woman who does not wish to keep her child. While I would agree that so much more should be done it is untrue for you to use the word "nothing".
You claimed this was all about saving babies.
Saving babies is a grand goal. And everyone supports that. But if that were the goal, anti-choicers would use science to determine which policies actually lead to saving babies and reducing abortions. They do not do that. At all.
Banning abortion does not reduce abortions. It probably does to some extent, but because abortion bans are correlated with lack of access to contraceptives and lack of sex education, the number of pregnancies in these jurisdictions is higher to begin with, so even the minor reduction in abortions does not equal less abortions overall.
And let me know when you have things like paid parental leave, free prenatal care, free births, free access to midwives, free postnatal care, subsidised daycare, and half the maternal mortality rate that you do now.
All those things would save babies. Countries that have all things have significantly less abortions and they do not have to take away rights.
Read the part called “Conclusion”.