In todays news...

[Yorick]

irrt4fsnmv631.jpg (125.43 KiB) Viewed 305 times

[MingtheMerciless]

Roe V Wade overturned.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-61928898

The most conservative Judge is now saying that the Gay Marriage, Right to Contraception and Anti-Sodomy judgements should be looked at again.

Talk about taking a step back to the dark ages.

[DefTrap]

Americans are funny.
My US boss proudly reminded us all that they have a holiday coming up where they celebrate their release from oppression across the pond.
I reminded him we celebrate that daily.

[Count Steer]

Roe V Wade overturned.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-61928898

The most conservative Judge is now saying that the Gay Marriage, Right to Contraception and Anti-Sodomy judgements should be looked at again.

Talk about taking a step back to the dark ages.

Have they been infiltrated by the Taliban?

(Some of the judges seem to think The Handmaid's Tale is a plan rather than a novel too).

[Felix]

Never mind, they can still get there guns eh

[MingtheMerciless]

Americans are funny.
My US boss proudly reminded us all that they have a holiday coming up where they celebrate their release from oppression across the pond.
I reminded him we celebrate that daily.

Could always tell him we have burn a treacherous Catholic night on Nov 5th.

[JackyJoll]

Roe V Wade overturned.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-61928898

The most conservative Judge is now saying that the Gay Marriage, Right to Contraception and Anti-Sodomy judgements should be looked at again.

Talk about taking a step back to the dark ages.

Should we have an anti-sodomy forum?

And hat?

[slowsider]

Roe V Wade overturned.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-61928898

The most conservative Judge is now saying that the Gay Marriage, Right to Contraception and Anti-Sodomy judgements should be looked at again.

Talk about taking a step back to the dark ages.

Should we have an anti-sodomy forum?

And hat?

Bugger that.

[Noggin]

Never mind, they can still get there guns eh

This was shared by a friend of mine on FB, I highlighted just one bit that made me angry. TBF, far too much of it made me want to bang political heads together, but hey ho. I'm just a woman, so neither I nor my opinions (or body) count for anything

Adalbert Gordon-Ernst


The US Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v Wade has revealed deep divisions and contradictions within me. I never thought I could end up being inherently anti-abortion but vehemently pro-choice, but here we are.

Let me acknowledge my discomforts and limitations:

I am a man, equipped with structures that can 100% cause an unwanted pregnancy but be 100% unaffected by the consequences of giving birth (and being forced to give birth).

I am also a medical practitioner bound to always act in the best interests of my patients—even if their decisions might make me morally uncomfortable.

I have always respected a woman’s right to termination, and believe this should be available safely, without prejudice, and as early as possible. I also believe that conscientiously objecting doctors have every right to abstain from providing this service provided they refer a woman to the appropriate caregiver after careful and non-judgemental counselling.

I myself do not anaesthetise for elective terminations, and if you wish to call me a fence-sitter, let me counter that I would not be giving my patient the best care I could if I were constantly fretting about what I was doing. So I refer.

And I absolutely have no problem in assisting in certain cases of termination—such as where a woman’s life is in danger, where there is clear evidence that the pregnancy is not compatible with life, or where it has resulted from rape. Nor have I ever walked away from assisting where complications have arisen as a result of a termination—to do so would make me criminally and morally negligent. I can’t believe there are actually doctors who would refuse a woman care in this case and brand her a murderer.

The religious pro-choice crowd are really just a forced-birth crowd who peddle saving the lives of children over a callous disregard for women… and actually children too. It is so easy to advocate for “the unborn” and then care fuck-all about the child once it is born. Moral duty seemingly done, they can revert to sending thoughts and prayers and conveniently ignore Jesus’ exhortation to clothe the naked and feed the hungry.

Dear evangelicals, if you are really pro-life, will you ensure that those born will be afforded a life filled with love and care? Your silence seems deafening and telling. If you’re going to advocate biblically for the unborn, then you’re also going to have to make peace with an Old Testament deity who is happy to smite that child once born for being insolent to its parents, an entity who supports (or at least tolerates) slavery, and who happily allowed Jephthah to stab his daughter to death because of hubris. (Hardly the benevolent Jesus we find dispensing love during the Sermon on the Mount, but I digress.)

With all due respect to the faith I was raised in, it saddens me to see a brand of evangelical “christianity” that has poisoned the US’s constitution over the years now spread further like a malignant tumour. It has forever stained the separation of church and state a democracy absolutely requires to function. How is it that the world’s superpower has created a situation where guns seemingly have more rights than women?

The truth is that where termination is freely and legally available, the rate of termination actually decreases. Fewer women seek dangerous back-street abortions, and fewer people die. A lesser evil if you will results a greater good.

I am a father now and this weighs heavily on me—I guess I can be grateful that I live in a country that, with all its problems, at least does not try to violate the integrity of my daughter’s right to choose.

So whatever your thoughts on the unborn, on the near-impossible way to define where life begins and where human rights become paramount—remember that, to paraphrase Atticus Finch, you cannot offer judgment until you have climbed into a person’s skin and walked a mile in their shoes.

Roe v Wade (as liberal judge Ginsburg admitted) was an imperfect platform to secure the right to termination, for it never resulted in an act of law as we for example have enshrined it in South Africa. But now it is gone and the result will not be anything good. So here I sit with my discomforts and cognitive dissonance. I thank my wife for opening my eyes to the constant battle women face for simply being acknowledged as equals, and my daughter for reminding me every day how fragile life is.

Let us think on these things and hopefully become a little wiser.

[Mussels]

The bold part is where so many arguments fall down, it's bullshit designed to get people worked up and not true. Guns don't have rights.
It's a shame as the rest of it looks well thought out and objective.

[mangocrazy]

The bold part is where so many arguments fall down, it's bullshit designed to get people worked up and not true. Guns don't have rights.
It's a shame as the rest of it looks well thought out and objective.

Substitute 'gun owners' for 'guns' and the point stands. Why focus on that one sentence when you agree with the overall tone of the piece?

[Mussels]

The bold part is where so many arguments fall down, it's bullshit designed to get people worked up and not true. Guns don't have rights.
It's a shame as the rest of it looks well thought out and objective.

Substitute 'gun owners' for 'guns' and the point stands. Why focus on that one sentence when you agree with the overall tone of the piece?

Because that one part will discredit the rest. If I read an article and know some of it already and the part I know is accurate then I'm likely to believe the rest. As soon as I see hyperbole then it is all called into doubt.

[mangocrazy]

The bold part is where so many arguments fall down, it's bullshit designed to get people worked up and not true. Guns don't have rights.
It's a shame as the rest of it looks well thought out and objective.

Substitute 'gun owners' for 'guns' and the point stands. Why focus on that one sentence when you agree with the overall tone of the piece?

Because that one part will discredit the rest. If I read an article and know some of it already and the part I know is accurate then I'm likely to believe the rest. As soon as I see hyperbole then it is all called into doubt.

In that case you'd never believe anything you ever read on this forum.

[slowsider]

The bold part is where so many arguments fall down, it's bullshit designed to get people worked up and not true. Guns don't have rights.
It's a shame as the rest of it looks well thought out and objective.

Substitute 'gun owners' for 'guns' and the point stands. Why focus on that one sentence when you agree with the overall tone of the piece?

Because that one part will discredit the rest. If I read an article and know some of it already and the part I know is accurate then I'm likely to believe the rest. As soon as I see hyperbole then it is all called into doubt.

If you consider 'gun-control' versus 'women-control', you can see that those advocating one have more clout than those advocating the other.

[Mussels]

Substitute 'gun owners' for 'guns' and the point stands. Why focus on that one sentence when you agree with the overall tone of the piece?

Because that one part will discredit the rest. If I read an article and know some of it already and the part I know is accurate then I'm likely to believe the rest. As soon as I see hyperbole then it is all called into doubt.

If you consider 'gun-control' versus 'women-control', you can see that those advocating one have more clout than those advocating the other.

I didn't know there was any decision about women control in the States. By using that description you make it sound like a male female argument, it isn't and your argument is meaningless.

I agree women should have a choice, I disagree with the way they are campaigning for it. It is patronising and will put off anyone who is undecided.

[DefTrap]

The US majority clearly don't want gun control enough, that's the long and short of it.
There's no correlation with women's rights obviously. But it is weird how freedoms are interpreted.

[slowsider]

Because that one part will discredit the rest. If I read an article and know some of it already and the part I know is accurate then I'm likely to believe the rest. As soon as I see hyperbole then it is all called into doubt.

If you consider 'gun-control' versus 'women-control', you can see that those advocating one have more clout than those advocating the other.

I didn't know there was any decision about women control in the States. By using that description you make it sound like a male female argument, it isn't and your argument is meaningless.

I agree women should have a choice, I disagree with the way they are campaigning for it. It is patronising and will put off anyone who is undecided.

The decision only affects women. It removes their choice. How can it not be about women control?

They had a choice, it was taken away.

[wheelnut]

The decision only affects women. It removes their choice. How can it not be about women control?

They had a choice, it was taken away.

The decision has been given back to the individual states. There perhaps is an argument to say that’s correct, but it’s not going to go well.

[slowsider]

The decision only affects women. It removes their choice. How can it not be about women control?

They had a choice, it was taken away.

The decision has been given back to the individual states. There perhaps is an argument to say that’s correct, but it’s not going to go well.

Given to the individual state. Taken from the individual woman...

If there was that argument, it was thrashed out in 1973.

[Cousin Jack]

Roe V Wade overturned.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-61928898

The most conservative Judge is now saying that the Gay Marriage, Right to Contraception and Anti-Sodomy judgements should be looked at again.

Talk about taking a step back to the dark ages.

Have they been infiltrated by the Taliban?

(Some of the judges seem to think The Handmaid's Tale is a plan rather than a novel too).

All joking aside, there is a very strong bible-bashing right-wing in the US that are every bit as rabid as the Taliban. Only the name of the god is different.