If a man could impregnate most of the women in a room by a cough as he passes by you might have a point.

You understand the irony don't you?

@BD66 no irony, just false"reasoning" by you, again.

@BD66 That's not irony... The reason those are not equivalent, for all the people that can't seem to figure it out on their own, is twofold. First, as @Organist1 said, you can't catch a case of pregnancy from someone else. And second, the government wasn't FORCING people to take the vaccine, many private institutions and government institutions were making it a condition of using their services or working for them to protect others. The government is, however, FORCING women who want to terminate their pregnancy to carry to term, and has no entity it is beholden to that said practice would protect.

@ChestRockfield

"you can't catch a case of pregnancy from someone else."

Really! I think you have to go back a read your biology textbooks!

I think it takes more effort to become pregnant than it does to pick up an airborne virus.

At least it was for me when I conceived my children.

@BD66 My original comment referred to catching a deadly virus from a pregnant woman. So, not the same.

@ChestRockfield We'll now peel back the next level of ridiculousness:

"The government is, however, FORCING women who want to terminate their pregnancy to carry to term, and has no entity it is beholden to that said practice would protect."

This is what happens if Roe vs. Wade is overturned. The court is essentially saying "The federal government does not have the authority to make laws with respect to abortion. Those laws will be made by the states"

Here are the states that do and don't have bans on abortion.

[nbcnews.com]

So, if Roe vs. Wade was repealed, pregnant women would have to go to the nearest state where abortion was legal to have an abortion. Just like they did before Roe vs. Wade.

@BD66 Except
A: That places an undue burden on a woman by having a complete ban on abortion in their state and potentially every state around them. Also, state government is still government, so it's still a government FORCING a woman to carry to term.
An example to show how stupid your explanation is: would it be appropriate if the Supreme Court invalidated protections for African Americans and left it up to states whether businesses could ban black people from entering? By your rationale, they could always go get groceries from another city or state, right, so no problem?
B: States are already passing laws that prevent women from seeking an abortion in another state
C: States are already passing laws that prevent women from seeking an abortion drugs from another state

@ChestRockfield My comment from another thread:

The majority of Americans believe:

Abortion should be legal very early in the pregnancy.
Abortion should be illegal very late in the pregnancy unless the mother's health is at risk or the unborn child will suffer severe disabilities and health problems.

It should be easy to pass legislation to that effect, but the issue is being held hostage by extremists on both sides.

[pewresearch.org]

If they could just put this framework in place across the 50 states:

Abortions are legal up to X months (where X could be 3, 4, 5, or 6)
After X months they are legal if the mother's health is at risk or the unborn child will suffer severe disabilities and health problems.

Alabama and Mississippi could vote for 3.
California could vote for 6.

And the issue could be resolved.

It's frustrating how something that the majority of Americans agree on could be such a mess for the past 50 years.

@BD66 Why do you think the what the majority of people want is necessarily a good metric for what should be done? When black people were slaves and couldn't vote and they took a vote to see if black people should be freed and given the right to vote and the a majority of people voted no, would it make sense to keep them slaves? Majority rule is stupid because people are generally stupid and short-sighted.

But I'm encouraging any women being denied an abortion to get drunk at will throughout her entire pregnancy and then give the infant to the state via Safe Haven laws. The Right is SOO concerned about fetuses, but couldn't give a single fuck about children, but they're probably going to get a taste of their own medicine and get saddled with a ton of babies they didn't want.

What are they going to do about that? Lock women up so they can't drink? Turn this whole fuckin country into Gilead?

@ChestRockfield This particular line:

"It should be easy to pass legislation to that effect, but the issue is being held hostage by extremists on both sides."

applies to you. You are in a very slim minority.

You are an extremist on the pro-choice side. People like you and the extremists on the pro-life side are the ones who have created and prolonged this conflict for the past 50 years.

@BD66 Just because there is an extreme to the other side doesn't make my position extreme simply by virtue of it being drastically different. That's like saying people who think all black people should still be slaves means that people like me who think no humans should ever be owned or sold in any capacity are "extreme abolitionists". The further the right goes in their pursuit to control and subjugate women doesn't change my position at all. It was, is, and always will be that women should have complete and total control over their reproductive rights. It comes down to a few key things that I believe:

1. No entity should have a greater claim to a person's body than that person.
2. I do not believe I should vote to impose on anyone a judgment I couldn't impose myself directly. If I were a judge and a 12 year old girl who was tied up in her uncle's basement and repeatedly raped for a year and a half who was X months pregnant came into my courtroom seeking the right to an abortion, I could/would not, in a million years, be able to be the one to decide she couldn't have it. Voting for that is the same thing as imposing it myself.
3. I don't think the exceptions to a ban should be such that a woman would have to prove she was raped (because that may not even be possible) etc. to be able to obtain the abortion.

If you think forcing a incestuously-raped pre-teen to have her relative's baby is a less extreme position than mine, I cannot help you.

@ChestRockfield You have spouted so much nonsense, that I must address it in-line:

Just because there is an extreme to the other side doesn't make my position extreme simply by virtue of it being drastically different. That's like saying people who think all black people should still be slaves means that people like me who think no humans should ever be owned or sold in any capacity are "extreme abolitionists".

BD66> The overwhelming majority of people believe black people should not be slaves. Some may believe so, but they are in an extremely small minority.

The further the right goes in their pursuit to control and subjugate women doesn't change my position at all. It was, is, and always will be that women should have complete and total control over their reproductive rights. It comes down to a few key things that I believe:

BD66> A woman who has carried a healthy child for 8 months could induce labor and give birth to the child without killing it. The majority of people in the USA believe killing a healthy 8 month old fetus is very similar to murder. Your believes that women should be allowed to kill fetuses rather than give birth to them is an extreme position.

No entity should have a greater claim to a person's body than that person.

BD66> You could make the same argument for the 8 month fetus. You are giving the mother the right to kill a baby rather than give birth to it.

I do not believe I should vote to impose on anyone a judgment I couldn't impose myself directly. If I were a judge and a 12 year old girl who was tied up in her uncle's basement and repeatedly raped for a year and a half who was X months pregnant came into my courtroom seeking the right to an abortion, I could/would not, in a million years, be able to be the one to decide she couldn't have it. Voting for that is the same thing as imposing it myself.

BD66> Has that ever occurred even once in the USA? You are making up an extreme hypothetical case.

I don't think the exceptions to a ban should be such that a woman would have to prove she was raped (because that may not even be possible) etc. to be able to obtain the abortion.

If you think forcing a incestuously-raped pre-teen to have her relative's baby is a less extreme position than mine, I cannot help you.

BD66> OK to address your concern, the legislation could be easily modified to cover your hypothetical corner case.

Abortions are legal up to X months (where X could be 3, 4, 5, or 6)

After X months they are legal if the mother's health is at risk or the unborn child will suffer severe disabilities and health problems or the mother was raped and held hostage against her will for more than X months.

@ChestRockfield The issue of Black Slavery was settled during the Civil War, with a loss of 750,000 lives.

This issue is not nearly as divisive.

The overwhelming majority of people want The Morning After pill to be legal.

The overwhelming majority of people do not want healthy 8 month old fetuses to be killed through abortion.

Maybe we should have a new Civil War.

The overwhelming majority of the people with reasonable positions on abortion could sit it out.

Then you and the "8 month old fetus killing crowd" could have your war with the "no morning after pill crowd" and fight it out to the death.

@BD66 I would love that.

@ChestRockfield What's stopping you "Full Term Fetus Killers" ? Don't you have any John Browns among you? No suicide bombers at Pro-Life Rallys? I think you "Full Term Fetus Killers" are all bark and no bite!

@BD66 The enticing part for me would be getting killed trying to protect people's rights. I'll join in pretty much any all out war and go Leroy Jenkins on that motherfucker. But I ain't gonna start the shit. I think I'll be able to do more good helping women obtain abortifacients or providing other means to women in need.

@ChestRockfield You don't believe in life after death, but you want to get killed trying to protect other people's rights? Don't you have anything you want to do with your life?

@BD66 Nope. I'm done. No bucket list. Ready to go as soon as I can get past whatever mental block I have to suicide.

@ChestRockfield That's a sad thing to hear. I hope you find some motivation and meaning in your life some time soon.

@BD66 Considering it was a complete accident, all of life is meaningless. It wasn't my choice to be like this. It may be worse than other ways of existing, but it's also better than some ways, too.