basically, the less likely someone is going to need an abortion the more they are against it

Just relaying what someone who seemed to know what they were talking about said :shrug: they are pretty young in that tweet

Polls don't lie :nono:. Although to be fair that's a poll of everyone - maybe it's different in polls of "red states only".

there are a lot of violent protests going on around the country

Victory for life is such bull****, fat cats like him have no idea what it takes to raise a child or what poverty is

but that isnt his fault?

poor people have no idea what it is like to be rich and have ever utterance used and abused by the world?

The point is he has no idea what it's like for women and girls in situations so hard they choose abortion

Does any world leader?

USA : Roe vs Wade overturned
 

No which is why it should be down to the citizens; polls indicate that nearly 80% of US citizens are pro-choice. You’re a fan of democracy LT so why are you so against the will of the masses being implemented?

Why is that relevant? He's the one claiming that this decision is a "victory for life" I'm speaking specifically about this man who made this comment

Then in each state they can vote for a politician who also shares their views and if that person is in power they can change the position

No laws are made from polls

This would rely on politicians being elected based on the single policy of abortions which is obviously not the case. The stats wshow quite clearly that the majority of people are in favour of abortion being legal (at the very least, early tsage abortions, up to 16 weeks) however that doesn't mean they feel passionately enough about it for them to over-rule the other policies they're voting for. You're living in a rather simplictic world if you think voters agree with the candidate they vote for on ALL issues. It's not really possible.

You know what else is annoying is I've seen a lot of people post on social media about this saying that basically most people who are "my body, my choice" were pro mandating vaccinations, the assumption that if you think one way on one issue that you automatically think a certain way on all other issues too.

I read this on fb...whilst it makes no sense, it made a lot of sense to me.



Can a 13-year old girl adopt a baby if she wants to?

No. Obviously not, are you nuts?

What about a 15-year old girl? Can she adopt a baby if she feels like it?

Absolutely not!

How about an 18-year old girl? Surely SHE could adopt a baby, right?

Still, no. No way.

What if she’s 20? No longer a teenager. A 20-year old can definitely adopt a baby if she feels like it, right?

Actually, no.

Hm. Weird. Why not? There are 400,000+ children in foster care, why can’t she adopt at least one of them?

She just can’t. You have to qualify to adopt a child. Rigorous background checks, home visits, proof of financial and mental stability, etc. it’s a whole thing.

Cool.

But if she, at 14, gets impregnated by an abusive ex-boyfriend (who shoved her out of his moving car and left her for dead), she must carry to term, give birth and just, figure it out somehow?

Yes. That is correct.

But, she’s only 14 …

SHE WILL FIGURE IT OUT. She should have been more careful. Made better choices.

So, to “punish” her for her poor choices, we force her into motherhood, which we’ve established she’s totally unqualified for? And now, we are suddenly comfortable with a young, traumatized girl, caring for a vulnerable little screaming human being that is wholly reliant on her for survival?

Yes. Absolutely. Such an unexpected blessing.

But …

BLESSING.

Got it. ����

What is a Woman?

Can a man get pregnant and have an abortion?

That's spot on Parm, great post

Yes Fair Point,
but the USA is Split,
Those Republican States have their own law now

Police all been updated



Sign Of The Times

Keep Labours Starmer
out of this thread

If livestock were wild, the females have no, or very little choice in who gets up them to impregnate them.

They also don't have the option to abort, the closest you will get to abortion in the animal kingdom is the killing, or abandonment of new borns by their mothers.

If Livestock were wild they wouldn't be live stock......

.

Well I feel if the US wants this then the Dad should be by law involved in the child's life if the mother decides to keep it, and by being involved I mean involved, not just transferring a few dollars at the end of the moment, every weekend with Daddy for starters, and at least 6 full weeks in the year where Dad has custody

Actually most primate species (and loads of other species) do have a high degree of female partner selection (and thus male competition); there's a lot of "trying to impress" with physical prowess and resource gathering, "peacocking" bewteen males in hopes of being chosen as a mate by as many females as possible. It's a bit like "Love Island".

The second part you've pretty much covered yourself there Parmy; animals DO abort, they just do it at birth. Normally for (to be bleak/blunt) the same reasons as humans often choose abortion; because there's a reason to believe they won't survive anyway, or because of a lack of resources to feed/raise them. Then there's bloody hamsters... they're notorious for eating their babies for no apparent reason/because they fancied a snack. :umm2:

I wouldn't make this mandatory, there are plenty of mums out there who do not want any sort of shared custody (and for good reason).

You can be certain they’d find some way to say it’s unconstitutional to control a mans life or body, I’d personally back mandatory vasectomies for straight men until they can prove they’re set up and stable enough to start reproducing

and plenty Mums who shouldn't have children as well :shrug: of course there are flaws in what I proposed just as there are gaping flaws in what has been enshrined in law by the Supreme court

That would be better tbf

Oh god, don’t start that conversation with him, Jesus

yep...... not that I would genuinely be behind mandatory vasectomies really but it certainly would prove a point

The elephant in the room is that there's already a looming population decline catastrophe on the horizon; aging populations eventually simply cannot function. Couple that with the fact that it's becoming near-impossible for a lot of young people to get to the point where they're "set up and stable" and you're left with... well. A lot of half-empty classrooms.

Also vasectomy reversal doesn't actually work half the time.

You’d see how quick they developed a love of choice over ones autonomy

Yeah Cherie don't make me point out the verified statistical fact that the vast majority of domestic abuse perpetrators are men; the MRA's really don't like it! :nono: #NOT ALL MEN reee

100%

Or, just wait until they get one of their mistresses pregnant and they want to deal with it

These laws don't apply to the rich and powerful or their families, they'll have private doctors who will do it, just like they have "people" for everything else. There's no real morals or ideology behind it at the end of the day. It's rules for the cattle not for the farmers.

Actually just reading now that Trump (prior to becoming a Politician) claimed to be very Pro-choice. These guys make me sick, changing their opinions to suits whatever works better for them politically. playing with peoples lives

Dr John putting some scientific context into the debate
 

Trump was a registered Democrat throughout most of the 2000's ... his red hat is 100% a costume and always has been. He doesn't personally believe even half of it. He said privately that Roe vs Wade being overturned would be net negative for the Republican party, whilst celebrating it in public. It's all pantomime.