RIOT, ahem, Protest Season 2022 in 3, 2, xx

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

GS i answered your questions.

please tel me why women can’t finish school,,get a job, or get married, if they put their baby up for adoption.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Once again a person who has zero chance of ever having to deal with the ramifications of an act, claims it’s inconsequential.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Once again a person who has zero chance of ever having to deal with the ramifications of an act, claims it’s inconsequential.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

This.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

This.

no, not this. not even close.

(1) everyone understands that the more restrictive abortion rights are, the harder things will be for some women. And i feel empathy for them.

but…

(2) please tell me where in the constitution, where it says that judges are supposed to decide cases, based on the premise of easing the burden for one side or the other. It doesn’t say that.

(3) i can happily and honestly discuss the impact of restrictions on women. You can raise my taxes to pay for effective sex education and availability of contraception. I’m all in favor of reducing unwanted pregnancies. You can also raise my taxes to pay for expenses to help pregnant women carry the baby and give it up for adoption.

It’s your side, which never, ever discusses the impact of all this to the other party involved, the baby. All you do is express concern for the mother. The mother isn’t the only one involved. You’ll never be aborted, and you have literally zero empathy or consideration for the tens of millions who are.

i have deep empathy for a woman who is pregnant and in despair over it. That empathy, does t extend to the point where i’m ok with them slaughtering someone else to ease their burden.

there is literally zero right to abortion in the constitution. Zip.

There is an explicit, irrefutable
right, to not have your life taken without due process.

The issue of abortion isn’t about women’s rights, because we all agree that women can do whatever they want, as long as they don’t harm someone else. we all agree on that.

The whole issue then, is whether or not the baby represents “someone else.”. every other angle of this, is a politically motivated smokescreen.

that’s all that matters here, the status of the baby. yet your side never mentions it. because they know it makes their position look monstrous.

you focus on the impact to mothers, and ignore the impact to the babies, because it’s more convenient for you. It’s also extremely intellectually dishonest and cowardly. But it makes your position a whole lot easier to do defend, and that’s all just matters.


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Once again a person who has zero chance of ever having to deal with the ramifications of an act, claims it’s inconsequential.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Was that a response to Jim in CT? I reread his thread and didn't see anything in it about the "act" being inconsequential. But, then, you do see things the way you want to see them.