[AdamB]

There is a vocal contingent of women who are pro-choice.
There is also a contingent of women who are anti-abortion.

I believe the abortion issue will be important but not completely decisive.

I'd prefer that we listen to the women's opinions in the group. Or from anywhere actually. What exactly do you, or I, or VT know about creating a real, live human being? Other than having been around for the fun part? And, in some cases (not willing to speculate on the circumstances of others and what happened after we became parents) the responsibly involved in raising our spawn.

[AdamB]

Banning the sale of ammunition would certainly be considered as "abridging the right to bear arms" and would not stand a test with this Supreme court.

There are no facts in the future. The 2nd Amendment says you can bear all the arms you want. Ammunition wasn't mentioned. Like privacy. Which once we had, and now we don't. Why? Because it isn't mentioned in the Constitution.

It would not matter anyway as there is about a twenty year supply in civilian hands right now and if used sparingly, Not just shot up for practice, could last a hundred years.

Sure. Hopes and dreams abound in the future. Notice how your concern in response to my relatively long argument was all about YOU, and not those for whom you appear to lack any empathy whatsoever. Is it because they are women, or demographically biased towards non-white and poor? Do you trend towards religious nuttery? You haven't given off many signals pro or con on that topic.

[vtsnowedin]

I think I am best described as Agnostic. As in I know there is no heaven but might pray there is no hell.
As to Women's' opinions on the topic I don't know of any active women on this forum at present. Their opinion collectively, not just on this forum, of course bears more weight but that does not preclude the male members here from having valid opinions.

[AdamB]

but you appear blase on it happening to ANOTHER AMERICAN.....because... A) it isn't you and

No. The argument is much simpler. It's the question at what point is an unborn child a human with corresponding rights.

Quite a simple question. Quite a difficult, and personal, answer.

I believe TX draws the line when heart beat can be detected, which seems sensible to me. That allows for enough time to handle incest/rape cases and to test for hereditary diseases.
Aborting a 9th month pregnancy is murder in my eyes, no matter how much "my body, my rights" you scream.
But that's my moral compass. Yours might be different.

I find morality a very, VERY slippery slope. I can completely agree with yours. And agree with a female doing exactly what offends your sense of morals rather than being forced to bring an unwanted fetus to term. And I believe you and I are both males, and have no business pretending our morality on this topic matters.

involves primarily women of a certain socio-economic status and racial background

don't pull the race card. It's been overused.

Well, in the case of who is running around in the US having abortions, how would you prefer I refer to the group that is overrepresented in the statistics? Socio-economic, by the way, can just as easily be nose pickers in Appalachia, as good solid stupid white folks as it gets, just as good as <fill in your favorite euphemism for all other US non-Appalachia lower socio-economic status>.

[AdamB]

As to Women's' opinions on the topic I don't know of any active women on this forum at present. Their opinion collectively, not just on this forum, of course bears more weight but that does not preclude the male members here from having valid opinions.

I agree. Males can have valid opinions on the topic. I also have the opinion that your opinion, and mine, and every other male on the planet, can be discarded in a nanosecond when placed up against the opinion of the pregnant female making the decision.

[mousepad]

As to Women's' opinions on the topic I don't know of any active women on this forum at present. Their opinion collectively, not just on this forum, of course bears more weight but that does not preclude the male members here from having valid opinions.

I agree. Males can have valid opinions on the topic. I also have the opinion that your opinion, and mine, and every other male on the planet, can be discarded in a nanosecond when placed up against the opinion of the pregnant female making the decision.

I don't think that's fair. I'm forced by law to take responsibility and pay support for my child. I therefore should also have the right to have my opinion heard and taken into account regarding abortion.

[AdamB]

Males can have valid opinions on the topic. I also have the opinion that your opinion, and mine, and every other male on the planet, can be discarded in a nanosecond when placed up against the opinion of the pregnant female making the decision.

I don't think that's fair.

Well, I might agree with you. There are plenty of things that aren't fair in the world, and giving the female total control of her own body prior to childbirth can be objected to, and obviously is, for plenty of reasons. But boy oh boy anyone other than that woman had better have a good reason and a court order why your or anyone else's judgement should override hers. And I don't mean waving around a Bible, or attempting to use standard patriarchial perspectives that made Roe Vs Wade so amazing for women in the first place.

I'm forced by law to take responsibility and pay support for my child. I therefore should also have the right to have my opinion heard and taken into account regarding abortion.

Forced by law to take responsibility for your offspring has nothing to do with you interfering with a woman's right to decide what to do with her body. Trying to influence a woman's decision that you've knocked up sounds completely reasonable. Prorbably happens a thousand times a day in the US. So there you go, your opinion will be heard and (hopeully) taken into account by exactly the right person making the final decision. If she discounts your opinion, bummer, I recommend better birth control planning on the part of one or both of you in the future.

[evilgenius]

but you appear blase on it happening to ANOTHER AMERICAN.....because... A) it isn't you and

No. The argument is much simpler. It's the question at what point is an unborn child a human with corresponding rights.
I believe TX draws the line when heart beat can be detected, which seems sensible to me. That allows for enough time to handle incest/rape cases and to test for hereditary diseases.
Aborting a 9th month pregnancy is murder in my eyes, no matter how much "my body, my rights" you scream.
But that's my moral compass. Yours might be different.

involves primarily women of a certain socio-economic status and racial background

don't pull the race card. It's been overused.

I think everybody draws the line at aborting a nine month pregnancy. The thing about relying upon a heartbeat instead of a medical opinion is that you give up the idea of viability being a medical definition that has its own complications so that the decision is easier to make. If you do that, though, you err on purpose against the woman's rights.

The larger the gap, the larger the error. I'm sure you like it when that happens to you? Outside of this issue, it normally is the sort of built in decision maker that we let define what classes people will belong to. For classes are how we arrange one group of people into one category or another. Classes allow us to let some groups go first. They also allow us to prevent other groups from ever going. They let us think about other people in certain ways, and feel justified in doing so.

And that's just some of what you run into if you choose to decide this issue solely based upon what sort of rights the unborn have. Because what rights does the mother have should she not want the child and it takes some time for her to either decide or act? What rights does she have when it is truly her wishes weighed against another who is largely imaginary, in terms of their purported ability to think or perceive? That's how cloudy this gets. There is a lot of room between zero and nine months. I don't know if there is an easy answer anywhere in there that comes down to one thing like a heartbeat.

[AdamB]

There is a lot of room between zero and nine months. I don't know if there is an easy answer anywhere in there that comes down to one thing like a heartbeat.

I absolutely agree. And state that us males don't have any right in the known universe as to telling a woman where she draws that line, if at all. But for some reason, we all seem to think we should be doing exactly that. Quite interesting, because I feel the same way, influenced by how I was raised, my status in society and gender. Raised in a patriarchal society is my only excuse, and my only ability to notice and correct for how I was raised being the objectivity that science requires, extrapolated into all other parts of my life. I get along great with lawyers by the way, they have their own definitive reference points, and the ability to boil things down to their most basic components. They have to deal with semantics though, I can usually avoid that within the scientific realm.

In either case, I'm not a female, and honestly couldn't say where, or if, I would pull that trigger if I was.

[mousepad]

If she discounts your opinion, bummer, I recommend better birth control planning on the part of one or both of you in the future.

I disagree. It's not the woman's child. It's the man AND the woman's child. Equal responsibility, equal rights.
And on top of that I today decided to be a woman. And God forbid, I hope you respect my dignity and don't discriminate against trans, or do you?

[AdamB]

If she discounts your opinion, bummer, I recommend better birth control planning on the part of one or both of you in the future.

I disagree. It's not the woman's child. It's the man AND the woman's child. Equal responsibility, equal rights.

Okay, I'll give you this one in the following way. A child and belongs to both parents, equally and unconditionally. So now....the only disagreement standing in the way is an easy question. When is a child, a child? Not when does life begin, we know the answer to that, but when does life, happening in the instant of conception, become a child with rights granted to it by the Constitution?

When it becomes, life? When its gender can be determined? When its heart beats? When paternity can be determined scientifically in the womb so we know who else gets a vote on whether it makes it out of the womb alive?

I base my answer to this question on the fact that one of the parents has exclusive ownership during the critical phases of gestation. Mouse, quick question, do you know of a male who has ever fought in the public sphere for control of a fetus because mom wanted to off it, and the father did not? Just based on common probability of occurrence, you've thought it, therefore someone must have tried it at some point, sometime, somewhere. I'm just wondering how that went, if we have any examples.

And on top of that I today decided to be a woman. And God forbid, I hope you respect my dignity and don't discriminate against trans, or do you?

It is still America. Sort of. So I could care less what your gender bending flavor of the day is. Myself, I've decided that today I am a pixie, and will be prancing around the house waving a wand and wearing a tutu. You have a happy trans day, I'm trying to get Julia Roberts lilt from her rendition of the role down straight when talking to the dog.

[vtsnowedin]

This discussion has become a bit circular. Ill stick my nose into it again by suggesting that most states will decide on something close to what most European countries have adopted and that is full access up to fifteen weeks with increasing restrictions after that which still allow for life of the mother or major deformity of the fetus.
Just a guess on my part so time will tell.

[Plantagenet]

This discussion has become a bit circular. Ill stick my nose into it again by suggesting that most states will decide on something close to what most European countries have adopted and that is full access up to fifteen weeks with increasing restrictions after that which still allow for life of the mother or major deformity of the fetus.
Just a guess on my part so time will tell.

I hope you are right, VTSNOW.

But for now things sure are a mess.

It all makes you wonder why the Ds didn't pass a law legalizing abortion when they had supermajorities in the Senate in the past.....like Obama's first term. But when it comes to things like climate change, nationalized healthcare and abortion the Ds always talk a good game, but when they actually are in power.......they don't do it.

Perhaps the Ds didn't understand how important the Supreme Court is in our system of government and how the President at the time of a vacancy gets to pick the SCOTUS nominee.

For instance, If Ruth Bader Ginsberg (D) had retired during the Obama (D) years, then Obama (D) would've picked her replacement (D) and none of this would be happening now.


Actually no. You were not on the SCOTUS to stay......in fact you stayed too long and evil orange man TRUMP picked your replacement....

Cheers!

[vtsnowedin]

Funny how having a solid liberal majority Supreme court was fine for decades but now a conservative majority brings howls of indignation and calls for restructuring the court.

[AdamB]

Funny how having a solid liberal majority Supreme court was fine for decades but now a conservative majority brings howls of indignation and calls for restructuring the court.

The howls make perfect sense. A liberal leaning court handed out rights that seemed to flow from those hinted at in the Consitution (my favorite being the pursuit of happiness part) and folks seemed to like that. A change to folks who lied to get the job so they could take them away...well....does anyone like it when a job applicant gets hired and it turns out they lied on their resume, and now you're stuck with them?

[vtsnowedin]

.does anyone like it when a job applicant gets hired and it turns out they lied on their resume, and now you're stuck with them?

There are a couple of examples of similar deception on the other side. Judges appointed by Republican presidents that turned out to be way more liberal then advertised.
Also for many years there were not enough conservatives in the Senate to confirm a truly conservative Justice so Presidents appointed those they thought could get confirmed.

[AdamB]

.does anyone like it when a job applicant gets hired and it turns out they lied on their resume, and now you're stuck with them?

There are a couple of examples of similar deception on the other side.

Funny thing though, when deception is expanding rights compared to depriving them, don't you think?

And of course I expect you to be aware of "deception", but only on one side of the equation.

Judges appointed by Republican presidents that turned out to be way more liberal then advertised.

So you are saying judges expected to be conservative, and deciding that HOLY CRAP!!! they just couldn't stand the idea of depriving folks of rights, is a BAD thing?

Also for many years there were not enough conservatives in the Senate to confirm a truly conservative Justice so Presidents appointed those they thought could get confirmed.

Sure. That's been going on like forever. But the Republicrats played the long con on this one, and made it work. You've got to admire that level of single minded malevolence spanning decades.

[evilgenius]

This discussion has become a bit circular. Ill stick my nose into it again by suggesting that most states will decide on something close to what most European countries have adopted and that is full access up to fifteen weeks with increasing restrictions after that which still allow for life of the mother or major deformity of the fetus.
Just a guess on my part so time will tell.

I hope you are right, VTSNOW.

But for now things sure are a mess.

It all makes you wonder why the Ds didn't pass a law legalizing abortion when they had supermajorities in the Senate in the past.....like Obama's first term. But when it comes to things like climate change, nationalized healthcare and abortion the Ds always talk a good game, but when they actually are in power.......they don't do it.

Perhaps the Ds didn't understand how important the Supreme Court is in our system of government and how the President at the time of a vacancy gets to pick the SCOTUS nominee.

For instance, If Ruth Bader Ginsberg (D) had retired during the Obama (D) years, then Obama (D) would've picked her replacement (D) and none of this would be happening now.


Actually no. You were not on the SCOTUS to stay......in fact you stayed too long and evil orange man TRUMP picked your replacement....

Cheers!

That's about right. The Democrats don't pass the sort of legislation they always talk about when they get a chance. I think it is because they don't want to go out of power because of the complaints. Any change big enough will come with complaints.

And, I think, RBG did stay too long. It would be different, if Obama had appointed her replacement.

Of course, nobody thought that the Senate would refuse to approve Merrick Garland as well. Things did happen that she, and most other people, didn't expect. Still, that's how the Democrats have operated lately. They do a lot of top down things. They allow those who think they are the only ones who can save us, to actually deal with the world as if they were the only ones. It makes for a less broad set of choices, when all is said and done.

[JuanP]

After the Roe vs. Wade decision, I thought that, maybe, some of you might be interested in getting a Vasectomy or may know someone who might. As most of the regulars here already know, I had a Vasectomy decades ago and consider it one of the smartest things I did in my life.

Today I came across this Bloomberg article, which mentions a spike of inquiries about Vasectomies since the SCOTUS' recent ruling:

"Why Men as Young as 23 Are Choosing Vasectomies in Post-Roe America"

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/other/w ... eee31c6f55

In it they mention the urologist I had my Vasectomy with, Dr. Doug Stein, who is a global celebrity on the field, and I very highly recommend.

https://www.vasweb.com/Dr_Stein.html

His website provides links to articles, and documentary movies and series on him and the "Gentle Touch Vasectomy", which requires no scalpels, no needles, and no lasers. That is the procedure I had. It is a 15-minute outpatient procedure which only requires a local anesthetic spray.

Dr. Stein co-founded "World Vasectomy Day" in 2013, which is celebrated every year. He Is also the President of No-Scalpel Vasectomy International (NSVI), my favorite charity in the world, which has performed thousands of free Vasectomies and trained Urologists on the procedure throughout the world, particularly in very poor countries like Haiti, the Philippines, Indonesia, Kenya, etc.

https://www.nsvi.org

Dr Stein has performed over 46,000 vasectomies and 1900 reversals and has trained hundreds of doctors around the world, including 178 at his main office in Tampa. He performs Vasectomies at many different locations across the USA. If you or someone you know is thinking of getting a Vasectomy, I highly recommend Dr. Stein. He charges $590 for the surgery and most medical insurance companies in the USA will cover the procedure.

[Plantagenet]

The SCOTUS just ruled that discrimination on the basis of race is illegal in college admissions.

HALLELUIA!!!!!!

Everyone in America should be cheering this result.

Its taken 60 years, but the racists in the D party have been defeated again!!!!

This isn't quite as dramatic as the defeat the Ds suffered when their beloved Confederacy was swept into the dust bin history after they lost the civil war.

But the Ds just wouldn't give up.

If they couldn't have slavery then the Ds were determined to have racial discrimination....

After the Ds succeeding in killing the Reconstruction period, they took over the southern states and introduced racial segregation and the racist "JIM CROW" systems.

Then, when the racist Ds succeeded in winning the presidency, they reintroduced racial segregation at the federal level.

The Ds backed slavery for a hundred years.....and then that end then they backed racial segregation for another 100 years.

AND when that was finally defeated in the 1960s the Ds STILL COULDN't give up on racial discrimination, so they switched and backed affirmation action to institutionalize racial discrimination against Whites and Asian.

And now, at last, the Supreme court has ruled that racial discrimination against Whites and Asians is unconstitutional, just like racial discrimination against blacks and hispanics is unconstitutional.

AND so, at long last, after 250 years of CRAZY D POLICIES BACKING SLAVERY AND SEGREGATION AND RACIAL DISCRIMINATION, we have hit a very important milestone.

For the very first time the SCOTUS has ruled that ALL RACIAL DISCIMINATION IS UNCONSITUTIONAL.

Oh my god.

What a glorious day.

We are FREE AT LAST....FREE AT LAST.

FREE at LAST from the crazy racist policies of the D party!!!!!!


We are FREE AT LAST....FREE AT LAST.......FREE at LAST from the crazy racist policies of the D party!!!!!!

Cheers!