I don't have a problem with women getting abortions, as far as I'm concerned that's between them and their God.

But I do have a problem with Justices legislating from the bench and that's what happened back when Roe v Wade happened. Now it's as it should be. The Feds have no right to decide about abortion, but the States do so let them do what they want.

If you don't like your State's stance on abortion, move to a State that agrees with your stance.

The Domino idea is mostly absurd. Even the current court, except with RBG instead ACB voted 6-3 in favor of gay rights in employment in 2020. The leftists didn't complain about that.

The difference is letting adults do as they choose as long as it doesn't harm anyone else. Most of us don't care who adults marry, or what gender they identify as, or any of that.

But we care about what they do to minor children. And we care about equality under the law.

Here is a side effect of this decision:

Leftists may choose not to move to conservative states like Texas that place "reasonable restrictions" on abortion.

quote:

Originally posted by mikeyspizza:
Employee: I'm requesting a few days off and you are going to pay for it. Here's my abortion leave request (or is it an abortion reimbursement request?).

Boss: How do I know you aren't just going to the beach? You will need to provide a copy of abortion clinic receipt.

These companies are idiots and are just virtue-signaling.

We know some of these women are loons, but do they really want everyone in their workplace to know they went and had an abortion at company expense?

Well The Walt Disney Company was one of the company's that announced that it would now cover travel expenses related to out-of-state abortions.
It is interesting that the stock is worth about half of what it was worth a little over a year ago and they have not paid dividends in over two years, but they have the money to help cast members get abortions.

Would anyone oppose abortion if the baby did not die?

It isn't the medical procedure on the mother nor the mother's right to choose a medical procedure on herself that is the problem. All the wailing about a woman's choice is misdirection.

quote:

Originally posted by 71 TRUCK:
Well The Walt Disney Company was one of the company's that announced that it would now cover travel expenses related to out-of-state abortions.
It is interesting that the stock is worth about half of what it was worth a little over a year ago and they have not paid dividends in over two years, but they have the money to help cast members get abortions.

A trip and an abortion are a hell of a lot cheaper than the cost of medical expense for having a child and raising it. 10x cheaper at the minimum.

Companies are encouraging abortions because childless workers are a lot cheaper and can work longer hours with less time off or less restrictive schedules. They can't discriminate against women now, but they can encourage abortion and transgenderism to prevent them from having children

Kind of sick isn't it?

quote:

Originally posted by Fly-Sig:
Would anyone oppose abortion if the baby did not die?

No of course not, because that is not an abortion. That is ending a pregnancy.

quote:

It isn't the medical procedure on the mother nor the mother's right to choose a medical procedure on herself that is the problem. All the wailing about a woman's choice is misdirection.

Correct.

And ask many of these abortionists why not try to save the life of the baby. Why kill him or her? Especially in the very late term abortions. They have no answers.

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:

quote:

Originally posted by Fly-Sig:
Would anyone oppose abortion if the baby did not die?

No of course not, because that is not an abortion. That is ending a pregnancy.

quote:

It isn't the medical procedure on the mother nor the mother's right to choose a medical procedure on herself that is the problem. All the wailing about a woman's choice is misdirection.

Correct.

And ask many of these abortionists why not try to save the life of the baby. Why kill him or her? Especially in the very late term abortions. They have no answers.

Very late term abortions are very rare.

In 2019, less than 1% of abortions in the US occurred at or after 21 weeks gestational age.

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/ss/ss7009a1.htm

As far as I can find, the earliest any baby has EVER been born and survived is 21 weeks 1 day gestational age.

The reason none of the pro-choice people talk about trying to save the baby in abortion rights discussions is that for the overwhelming majority of abortions, over 99%, it is literally medically impossible to save the baby at the gestational age at which the abortion occurs.

The late-term abortion issue is pretty much completely irrelevant to this discussion, because (A) they are a tiny, tiny percentage of abortions and, critically, (B) Roe v Wade never protected abortions after fetal viability in the first place, except in cases of pregnancy complications endangering the mother.

quote:

Originally posted by maladat:
The reason none of the pro-choice people talk about trying to save the baby in abortion rights discussions is that for the overwhelming majority of abortions, over 99%, it is literally medically impossible to save the baby at the gestational age at which the abortion occurs.

The reason 'Pro-Choice' people never talk about trying to 'save the baby' is that they're PRO-ABORTION!

quote:

Originally posted by Lefty Sig:
A trip and an abortion are a hell of a lot cheaper than the cost of medical expense for having a child and raising it. 10x cheaper at the minimum.

The company shouldn't be on the hook for either.

Option 1: Do the job that we are paying you to do, as directed.

Option 2: Work somewhere else.

Option 3: Stay at home and raise your child.

One wonders as abortions become prohibited, will we see population growth or will these people exercise more care in prevention in the first place.

Is there demographic data about who gets abortions? Location, income, race, age, etc?

quote:

Originally posted by konata88:
Is there demographic data about who gets abortions? Location, income, race, age, etc?

Yes. Search for “Who gets abortions?”

^^^ And if abortion is very rare after a reasonable amount of time, why the hysteria?

Is 15 weeks (like much of the rest of the world) not enough time to make a decision?

This is far from over. I have argued for years Roe should be overturned. Blue states are going to push their new found freedom to the max, and allow abortions up until birth. Blue cities inside red states are going to become abortion sanctuaries in direct violation of the law, and the media will salivate at the chance of video of arrests being made.

Blue cities trying to evade the laws in their states will likely fail. I picture Austin trying to do this, and getting crushed by the state.

But I do see abortion "tourism" between states becoming a major issue.

quote:

Originally posted by goose5:
This is far from over. I have argued for years Roe should be overturned. Blue states are going to push their new found freedom to the max, and allow abortions up until birth. Blue cities inside red states are going to become abortion sanctuaries in direct violation of the law, and the media will salivate at the chance of video of arrests being made.

quote:

Originally posted by maladat:

The late-term abortion issue is pretty much completely irrelevant to this discussion, because (A) they are a tiny, tiny percentage of abortions and, critically, (B) Roe v Wade never protected abortions after fetal viability in the first place, except in cases of pregnancy complications endangering the mother.

It is not irrelevant at all. Just ask any of the democrat leadership or rabid pro-abortionists what they want, and they will say abortion on demand. They want it at any stage.

And late term abortions aren't worth discussing because you say they're rare? Even if I believed that 1% number, that is still about 9,000 babies every year that are slaughtered. Close to 700,000 since 1973. That is just the babies that you claim are only viable at 21 weeks or later.

In any case, that fetal viability clause that Roe absurdly stipulated was always ridiculous and nonsensical. What is viability? Left in the womb, the baby will grow and be born and survive. As medical science improves, the stage at which a baby can survive outside the womb gets earlier and earlier. Just such an absurd case and arguments made in Roe.

An abortion at even 13 weeks is grotesque. I would consider that late term. Not at 21 weeks which is absolutely barbaric.

Watch this video if you can stomach it to understand just what happens to a baby in the womb at 13 weeks when it is aborted.



To say that the discussion of abortion at any stage is irrelevant to Roe simply disregards the millions and millions of innocent lives thrown away as a direct result to that awful decision in 1973.

quote:

Originally posted by Lefty Sig:
Here is a side effect of this decision:

Leftists may choose not to move to conservative states like Texas that place "reasonable restrictions" on abortion.

Oh god!!! One can only HOPE!!! [fingers crossed]

quote:

Originally posted by erj_pilot:

quote:

Originally posted by Lefty Sig:
Here is a side effect of this decision:

Leftists may choose not to move to conservative states like Texas that place "reasonable restrictions" on abortion.

Oh god!!! One can only HOPE!!! [fingers crossed]

This is the side effect I would love to suffer from.

quote:

Originally posted by erj_pilot:

quote:

Originally posted by Lefty Sig:
Here is a side effect of this decision:

Leftists may choose not to move to conservative states like Texas that place "reasonable restrictions" on abortion.

Oh god!!! One can only HOPE!!! [fingers crossed]

..and hopefully the ones already in these states will move the fuck out.

I just saw a news clip in which a hysterical protester screams "This will impact poor black women disproportionately!"

Yes, stupid, and that is exactly what your hero, Margaret Sanger, wanted and why she began the nationwide movement to abort babies. She was part of an actual white supremacist movement based on a pseudo-science called "eugenics." It held that some races were superior and some inferior. Hello, Adolf?

Her goal, then, about which she was explicitly clear in her writings, was to keep the negro race as small as possible, or even eliminate it entirely.

Progressives are so ignorant. They call everyone a racist, except actual racists, whom they call heroes.

Gun control is a similar story. The early laws were passed to keep guns out of the hands of liberated negroes after the Civil War, and that intention played out well into the twentieth century.

If there is widespread bloodshed over the repeal of Roe, it will be rooted in the darkest of white supremacist goals-- kill black babies! The hysterical protester was right about blacks suffering disproportionately, but she had no idea what she was babbling about.

Yesterday, an embarrassingly stupid member of Congress, Maxine Waters, outrightly called for violence. Some activist groups are urging their followers to "bring rifles" to protests. Supreme Court members and their childrenhave been doxed and threatened.

This is serious stuff. I've seen it play out in bad ways in other countries. I never thought I would see it here in the US.

I admit I was wrong in believing the SCOTUS would ever overturn Roe. I simply figured it, like time, was a one way thing.

But I am glad to have been wrong.

SCOTUS got it right, that it was and is not a Constitutional Right to murder, and murder is what it is, plain and simple.

If we "chose" to bring a child into a state of being, by the actions of man and woman, that "being", IS (to be) protected, has a right to life, and the Constitution does recognize that right, and "We" have duty and are obligated to press for the rights and protection of the born and unborn.

Abortion is not about "reproductive rights", that stops when the woman willingly chooses to engage in behavior that results in babies. (The whole argument of rape, incest "health of mother is worthy of its own place) A small minority would stand in opposition to contraceptives, sterilization, abstinence, or any method of birth control that is not destroying a life. The majority agree that is a persons freedom to exercise birth control.

Do not want a baby, don't do the baby thing. They don't happen any other way, except once upon a time...

And no one can "untrue" that, no matter what argument of illogical platform they occupy.

So, the states can and will, answer the issue of legal or illegal abortion, as each sees fit. I am good with that.

Although, I do see the road may well open to more states banning abortion, and if that happens, then the whole of the past 49 years may well be proven to have been a lie that this ever was "the will of the people"(60% support) as is often argued as fact.

And as far as the "less than 1%", are we relying on the industry and those that control the narrative to tell us the truth about the numbers? Not going to believe it for a minute.

I simply will not trust people that murder.