So let me get this right. Women are out on the streets right now, rioting, and saying that they wont have free open sex unless the guy has a vasectomy.
Even though Roe V Wade, only made abortion legal on the federal level in a defacto sense because it grants the right to privacy to get an abortion. So when it got repealed this effectively transferred the authority of allowing abortion or not to the states. So the states where these feminists are from like New York, Massachusetts, Washington, Oregon, Colorado, and California already have abortion legal either in law or defacto and thus would be unaffected by the ruling.
So in essence what we have are moronic feminists are very upset about women in Oklahoma and Texas. Who in general are not pro-abortion to begin with not being able to get a legal abortion in their own state. Also consider that states like those are generally hated by feminists to begin with for being too "conservative".
However, the majority is oblivious to that fact. And genuinely believe that Roe V Wade universally legalized abortion and that now that it is gone, abortion is now illegal. Which is just not true, but they believe it anyway.
So are they just stupid or too lazy to bother looking at a very basic legal understanding of what Roe V Wade even did? Either way, I do not think people who are this flat out ignorant of Roe V Wade even did should be allowed to vote. I don't care if it means requiring people to take a citizenship test to be allowed to vote, or just banning women entirely from voting. The fact that a very large part of our population is this hopelessly ignorant of how our country works is going to be it's death sentence.
Are women in these states concerned about it? That is dumb. I always found it to be "reasonable" that people were upset about it in my state though. Michigan could swing either way with it, even with Adolf Whitmer at the helm.
Jordan Walker
You just made a lot of assumptions about a lot of people. There's roughly 162 million women in the Us and you summed them up into two categories. You're right, this has to be the only two options.
Jackson Richardson
overturning Roe v Wade cut federal funding for baboertions after 50 years. id be pissed too
Evan Gutierrez
I'm trying to lose the weight, user. Please don't shoot me. I made good progress already
>That image God you are going to make me wan't to stroke it so bad >That image Why are 2D fatties so hot but 3D so fucking gross?
Nathaniel Sanders
I did. But there are a lot of people who are really chimping out about it. And MSM is reporting that well over 60% of women support it in their polling. What else am I supposed to do but take it at face value.
Ethan Foster
Because you watch anime more than you see real people
He posted one of the ugliest fat girls I have ever seen. There are a lot prettier ones.
Levi Long
With 3ds the reality of how gross they are is inescapable.
Aiden Lewis
I don't care about fat men
Michael Myers
Makes sense in your case. But really, these are women who are so ignorant that they get their understanding of law from Tiktok or something. Even though Roe V Wade bares no impact on their access to abortion.
The idea is that bodily autonomy should be a right, protected federally and incapable of being revoked by the state. It's not like the only people who would ever care about getting an abortion already live in states that allow it. The point is that no one should ever be forced to carry a baby to term against their will under any circumstances. >inb4 "just drive to [state or country that's nowhere fucking near where you live]" Not always an option, and beside the point entirely. >inb4 "just have safe, responsible sex" Birth control isn't always 100% effective, nor is it 100% available. Also, not everyone is necessarily educated about sex to genuinely understand how to avoid pregnancy anyway (i.e. a shitload of people believe the pullout method works. surprise: it doesn't.) Also now all sex is consensual. Also sometimes a couple might actively try for a baby before realizing they're actually absolutely not ready for a baby by a longshot; maybe circumstances have changed or they've learned something new they weren't aware of. Doesn't matter. >inb4 "b-but rape cases only make up [ridiculously small percentage] of abortions So fuck em? Not enough women are being impregnated by rape for you to care about the ones that are? Besides, you can't necessarily trust statistics like those because they're based on what people say which is fine for opinion polls but not great for situations where the subjects might not be super eager to tell you why they're doing the sensitive, private, stigmatized and controversial thing they're doing in the first place. And in a lot of places, you have to actually name your accused rapist, get him arrested, press charges AND he has to be proven guilty for the abortion to be performed anyway. Proving rape is nearly impossible even with DNA evidence, and by the time you get through that lengthy legal battle the pregnancy will either be very late term or you'll have given birth anyway. You shouldn't have to explain why you want an abortion.
Joseph Ramirez
"it should be up to the state" is the same argument used in favor of slavery too. we do have a federal government and we should use it occasionally to ensure all citizens have access to certain basic freedoms, regardless of what the state wants. remember, we're not 50 separate countries. we're 50 territories of the same country.
Henry Hall
>The idea is that bodily autonomy should be a right, protected federally and incapable of being revoked by the state. It's not like the only people who would ever care about getting an abortion already live in states that allow it. The point is that no one should ever be forced to carry a baby to term against their will under any circumstances. The point is not about whether or not the government has the right to declare it or not. The purpose is to allow the states, as in the states of the United States to decided in accordance to the will of their constituents.
>Not always an option, and beside the point entirely. >Birth control isn't always 100% effective, nor is it 100% available... Just stop having sex if you are ready to deal with having kids.
>inb4 "b-but rape cases only make up [ridiculously small percentage] of abortions So the argument that someone should just die for not just being an inconvenience but also being brought into existence from evil circumstances that the fetus had nothing to do with?
>The idea is that bodily autonomy should be a right, protected federally and incapable of being revoked by the state And yet the same people who claim abortion should be legal because of "bodily autonomy" both overwhelmingly support vaccine mandates and also support mutilating the genitals of male babies without their consent. They also tend to not look favorably on people who want to have limbs amputated. Why does this support of "bodily autonomy" apparently only apply in literally this one specific instance?
Kayden Brooks
the vast majority of abortions are self-reported as "elective", >90% of them, which are just murders of convenience. sicko
Leo Gutierrez
Okay, so lets play this stupid argument of yours to it's logical conclusion. Lets say we abolish all autonomy the states and territories get and transition to a unitary government.
How long do you think it would take until that system collapses from forcing one government, one system of laws, and one legal code, onto a society of 350 million who once had 55 or so state or territorial governments to meet the needs of there people.
Women struggle to distinguish between their body, and the body inside of them. I would even go as far to say they are incapable of it.
Evan Powell
>The point is not about whether or not the government has the right to declare it or not. That's. That's literally precisely what the point is. That's what Roe v Wade was. >The purpose is to allow the states, as in the states of the United States to decided in accordance to the will of their constituents. "states as in United States." "United States" "United" United by what? A federal government, maybe? One that stipulates national laws all states have to follow regardless of their own extralegal regional rulings? >>Not always an option, and beside the point entirely. >>Birth control isn't always 100% effective, nor is it 100% available... >Just stop having sex if you are ready to deal with having kids. No. And, again, not all sex is consensual. And, again, it's possible to THINK you're ready for a kid and then change your mind once you realize you're not. >>inb4 "b-but rape cases only make up [ridiculously small percentage] of abortions >So the argument that someone should just die You can't die if you haven't been born. Abortion is just another form of birth control. It's not the same as murdering an entire, fully-formed person. >for not just being an inconvenience but also being brought into existence from evil circumstances that the fetus had nothing to do with? Yes. If you rape me, I should be allowed to abort that baby. You do not (or, should not) have the right to impregnate whomever you want as long as you're willing to deal with whatever the consequences may be. I shouldn't HAVE to carry a baby I didn't even want to have or even make. >Any other strawmen you want to throw out there? Didn't make any strawmen because I didn't imply that you argued any of those points. What do you think "inb4" means?
Brayden Collins
Look. States have the right to write their own laws and decided what is just or not as long as it stays within their borders and follows the constitution. And you are a monster for looking at abortion as just another form of birth control. Birth control, prevents pregnancy, it does not end it.
>What do you think "inb4" means? It means you are arguing against an argument no one has yet made in the thread, thus inviting it to be made.
>And yet the same people who claim abortion should be legal because of "bodily autonomy" both overwhelmingly support vaccine mandates Access to optional birth control and prevention of disease are exactly the same thing. No faulty logic there whatsoever. (I'm being sarcastic, if you couldn't tell.) (Also, this is irrelevant. I didn't say anything about vaccines. I'm just saying Roe v Wade shouldn't have been overturned. I don't give a fuck about what ornamental things certain political parties believe in. Stay on topic.) >and also support mutilating the genitals of male babies without their consent. See former. (Also I've NEVER heard of feminists clamoring for the right to circumcise their babies lmao what in the absolute fuck are you talking about?) >They also tend to not look favorably on people who want to have limbs amputated. See former, again. I don't care about the other political opinions of the people who agree with me on this particular topic. >Why does this support of "bodily autonomy" apparently only apply in literally this one specific instance? I didn't say any of that.
