Ruth Bader Ginsburg has passed (Replaced by Amy Coney Barrett)(Now Abortion Discussion) (3 Viewers)

[GrandAdmiral]

Ugh... breaking news I DID NOT want to see.

ETA: Reported on CNN.

 

[Taurus]

Actually RoevWade is middle ground and has worked for 50 some years. But it seems we are going to throw it away along with any exceptions for rape or incest or danger to the life of the woman.

I would be fine with people who oppose abortion working to eliminate the reasons for abortion as best they can. Or trying to convince people not to have abortions by preaching their religious beliefs. But forcing women to give birth is a step too far.

And honestly, convenience is really not usually a reason for an abortion. There are usually far reaching reasons, and it’s a decision women are capable of making. Most women have a natural affinity for having a baby, it’s built into them. If they are making the decision to terminate a pregnancy, there is almost always a really compelling reason. We need to allow women to have dominion over their own bodies.

More to the point, they don't need a reason. You don't need to justify yourself to anyone when exercising such a fundamental right.

 

[V Chip]

It is not the womans body we are worried about.

You have never said something more true and revealing at the same time.

 

[Farb]

You have never said something more true and revealing at the same time.

Yep, because it is 100% true and it does prove that I am anti abortion.

 

[Taurus]

Yep, because it is 100% true and it does prove that I am anti abortion.

And anti-woman. You just don't see females as fully realized human beings.
Which is ironic considering 50% of the fetuses you'd enslave them to are themselves female.

 

[CoolBrees]

I thought it was a 'clump of cells'? That is good we agree on that.

So a full person has the right to kill another, not yet full person?

Cells are alive. That doesn’t make them viable or human. Because then you would have to argue that hair follicles and sloughed skin are humans.

Those cells are more human than the ones you kill women over.

 

[Optimus Prime]

Good read
========
(CNN) - Meg Schurr was 22 years old when she says she was sexually assaulted.

A college student in New York with the dream of working in public health, Schurr's life came to a grinding halt when she discovered she became pregnant as a result of the assault in 2014.

"My pregnancy couldn't have been more unplanned or unwanted -- it resulted from an encounter that I didn't want to have and asked to stop," Schurr told CNN.

Abortion felt like her only option. But Schurr, raised in a conservative Catholic household, was terrified of what that meant.

"I was afraid to rely on just Planned Parenthood's information -- because I had been told my whole life how biased they were, and how they only provided abortion services for profit," Schurr said, referring to the falsehoods pushed against the nonprofit sexual and reproductive health care provider that offers abortion services.

But scrolling through websites of crisis pregnancy centers, which sometimes rely on misinformation to dissuade women from having abortions, only scared her more. Ultimately, Schurr's doctor referred her to a Planned Parenthood clinic.

"I was free to make my choice without hesitation or barriers just because I was lucky enough to live in the NYC metro area," said Schurr, who now works as an administrative assistant for the reproductive rights think tank Guttmacher Institute.

The freedom to make that choice is something many Americans don't have; one people like Schurr are fighting for…….


https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/01/us/abortion-stories-legislation/index.html

 

[brandon]

Good read
========
(CNN) - Meg Schurr was 22 years old when she says she was sexually assaulted.

A college student in New York with the dream of working in public health, Schurr's life came to a grinding halt when she discovered she became pregnant as a result of the assault in 2014.

"My pregnancy couldn't have been more unplanned or unwanted -- it resulted from an encounter that I didn't want to have and asked to stop," Schurr told CNN.

Abortion felt like her only option. But Schurr, raised in a conservative Catholic household, was terrified of what that meant.

"I was afraid to rely on just Planned Parenthood's information -- because I had been told my whole life how biased they were, and how they only provided abortion services for profit," Schurr said, referring to the falsehoods pushed against the nonprofit sexual and reproductive health care provider that offers abortion services.

But scrolling through websites of crisis pregnancy centers, which sometimes rely on misinformation to dissuade women from having abortions, only scared her more. Ultimately, Schurr's doctor referred her to a Planned Parenthood clinic.

"I was free to make my choice without hesitation or barriers just because I was lucky enough to live in the NYC metro area," said Schurr, who now works as an administrative assistant for the reproductive rights think tank Guttmacher Institute.

The freedom to make that choice is something many Americans don't have; one people like Schurr are fighting for…….


https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/01/us/abortion-stories-legislation/index.html

The body has ways of shutting that sort of thing down.

 

[MT15]

So now the people who have been chanting about “state rights” to justify state abortion bans have revealed their plan to do a national ban at 6 weeks (preferably) as soon as 2024, presuming the GOP gains back Congress and the presidency per WaPo.

So nobody is safe from having the government force them to give up control of their bodies. I think the following is from Elie Mystal but am not sure:

 

[CoolBrees]

Looks like some zealot type folks will have to stop using Amazon

Amazon to reimburse U.S. employees who travel for abortions, other treatments

Amazon.com Inc , the second-largest U.S. private employer, told its staff on Monday it will pay up to $4,000 in travel expenses annually for non-life threatening medical treatments including abortions, according to a message seen by Reuters.

www.reuters.com

 

[Andrus]

This is a real pet peeve of mine. Why do you all have to keep adding new topics into the same threads? Just because today's Rowe vs. Wade news has something to do with the Supreme Court doesn't mean it should be posted here in the Ginsberg thread. You should start another thread as a new standalone topic. I really HATE sorting through these endless threads looking for important breaking news.

Important breaking news = New topic and new discussion

 

[DaveXA]

This is a real pet peeve of mine. Why do you all have to keep adding new topics into the same threads? Just because today's Rowe vs. Wade news has something to do with the Supreme Court doesn't mean it should be posted here in the Ginsberg thread. You should start another thread as a new standalone topic. I really HATE sorting through these endless threads looking for important breaking news.

Important breaking news = New topic and new discussion

Yeah, I was looking for the Roe vs Wade discussion and didn't see it, and was somewhat surprised to see it all here. Kinda late to start it over tho. Not sure what would be a good way to handle at this point.

 

[GrandAdmiral]

This is a real pet peeve of mine. Why do you all have to keep adding new topics into the same threads? Just because today's Rowe vs. Wade news has something to do with the Supreme Court doesn't mean it should be posted here in the Ginsberg thread. You should start another thread as a new standalone topic. I really HATE sorting through these endless threads looking for important breaking news.

Important breaking news = New topic and new discussion

As the thread starter, I just want to be clear in saying that I never changed the thread topic title either time. I assumed a mod did due to the course of the conversation and thus thought the change in topic was allowed. I'll be certain to follow course moving forward.

 

[Andrus]

As the thread starter, I just want to be clear in saying that I never changed the thread topic title either time. I assumed a mod did due to the course of the conversation and thus thought the change in topic was allowed. I'll be certain to follow course moving forward.

Nah... It's not about that. Just to be clear, I was referencing the fact that for some reason that I don't understand, members, mods, (whomever) keep adding breaking news that often is not directly related to the OP to the existing and at times loosely related threads. Like adding the Rowe vs. Wade news to this topic. I want them to start new topics instead.

I saw on the EE board where Brandon8283 posted that a thread was going here regarding the Rowe vs. Wade news, so then I come looking for it here and there was nothing. I ended up finding it in this thread. That set me off. I promote SR threads on social media regularly, but can I do it here? No! Because all of the discussion about anything even remotely relative to a topic here is crammed into a few threads.

Edit: Aside from the above, I wanted to close that thread on SR, and came here to get the link in order to redirect SR members to the thread here. I can't link to this convoluted mess.

 

[RobF]

Nah... It's not about that. Just to be clear, I was referencing the fact that for some reason that I don't understand, members, mods, (whomever) keep adding breaking news that often is not directly related to the OP to the existing and at times loosely related threads. Like adding the Rowe vs. Wade news to this topic. I want them to start new topics instead.

I saw on the EE board where Brandon8283 posted that a thread was going here regarding the Rowe vs. Wade news, so then I come looking for it here and there was nothing. I ended up finding it in this thread. That set me off. I promote SR threads on social media regularly, but can I do it here? No! Because all of the discussion about anything even remotely relative to a topic here is crammed into a few threads.

Edit: Aside from the above, I wanted to close that thread on SR, and came here to get the link in order to redirect SR members to the thread here. I can't link to this convoluted mess.

I don't know if the forum tools make it easy, but this thread could be split into a new one about this news from post 1648?

 

[Andrus]

I don't know if the forum tools make it easy, but this thread could be split into a new one about this news from post 1648?

Thanks Rob. Yeah, I was just thinking about that and was trying to remember how to do it on this platform. It's been a while since I tried. I think I need to start the new topic first and then move related posts to it. Working on it.

Edit: Hmmm... I did it wrong, but got it done.

 

[MT15]

Well, this is my fault. I’m sorry Andrus. Someone early in my introduction to the board had counseled me against making too many new threads. Since this thread had abortion in the title I just posted in it. Won’t happen again.

 

[brandon]

Yea, I can directly see the through-line from the death of Ginsburg, to the appointment of ACB, to this upcoming overturning of Roe. And I do think there’s some value is being able to tie those events together in showing that nothing happens in a vacuum and decisions and events in politics can and do have consequences many years later.

But I also think this absolutely deserved its own thread.

 

[Farb]

And anti-woman. You just don't see females as fully realized human beings.
Which is ironic considering 50% of the fetuses you'd enslave them to are themselves female.

Lots and lots of typical hyperbole "don't fully realized women as full humans", 'enslaving women'. Too bad none of it even makes sesne, but hey, I get it, when your argument is based on 'feelings' and emotions because it lacks both logic and common sense, you must rely on over the top emotion catchers.