That’s what I meant by “unless there’s something else involved” which also includes other medical reasons for impotency. Also, a vasectomy doesn’t mean that the truck isn’t loaded with cargo. It just means that there’s a breakdown in the delivery system.
The Dems NEED that narrative in order to stay alive. Abortion is the only thing the Dems have left to bring to the 2022 and 2024 table. This administration’s ratings are so low that they have to start an upheaval against conservatism and the topic of abortion is the only thing they can possibly hope to win elections with. Even Michelle Obama dislikes this administration.
That is exactly what Biden, Pelosi, and many others of the Satan's Angels said. I am amazed that any person with active brain cells would fall for such lies and total deception. The SC decision was straightforward and simple to understand. Sadly the insane mobs won't take time to read it or try to understand the SC's role in government. They listen to the Democrats that speak total lies meant to intentionally incite violence.
You gotta wonder exactly how this hyperbole they constantly push is received by most people. There's still a chunk of those who believe whatever their favorite talking head puts forth. I want to know how large this slug of Gullibles truly is. edit to add: It looks like Don puts the figure at 20%.
“I'm not upset that you lied to me, I'm upset that from now on I can't believe you.” -- Friedrich Nietzsche The dilemma of the US media, and its politicians.
The problem is, people do not like for things to be unsettled. Most of us have to have something we can believe, even if that something is total BS. We may leave this dysfunctional parent, but the majority of us will rush to the next one. We shall continue to get played.
I suppose that's why people are eager to leave things to the experts. It's easier on the brain than actually trying to think about things.
I wonder how much of this is part of our culture. Americans (and maybe others) love to have things resolved...give us a problem and we'll dog it to death. I think a lot of people would rather consciously accept a defective solution to having things just hang out there in a state of ambiguity. (I think this is pushed by capitalism, since every "problem" can be solved--even aging--if you just buy the right product.) I became aware of this when I quit drinking, and found myself going to Blockbuster and renting French movies. Unlike the "everything works out in the happy end" American flicks, the French movies were kind of affirming yet unsettling, as things in those movies usually ended as they do in real life. I'm sure there are a lot of other components to this, but this aversion to ambiguity is a real problem. It's childish.
I think that governments, federal and state, should stay out of it. Leave the decision to the woman and her doctor. This is akin to the govment telling you that you must have the vaccine. The govment has no right to dictate my (or your) personal decisions.
Reading back through a few of the most recent posts, I can see a trend here. The facts are that there are some very bright people out there but if we look at who “they” are and who “we” are, the biggest difference is the ability to reason. We, the seniors, are the very last generation to have been exposed to those who HAD to use reason and logic throughout their lives in order to survive. Some of us picked up that ability and some of us didn’t depending upon where and how we were raised and what kind of “comforts” our parents could afford and if our education was “old school” or “new school”. That said, as if logic became the next victim of human evolution, we had it in our grasp and didn’t preserve it for other generations to come. Most of us were taught to have an interest in discovering the answers to the “why’s” of this world whereas those who have come after us have been handed the answers before the questions have even been asked. It’s no wonder that the last couple of generations take every word from a supposed expert as fact because that’s the only thing they know how to do. Show them a leader, any leader that falls within the parameters of their programming and they’ll follow them into hell and back without even knowing exactly why they did it. Stupid? Perhaps. Ignorant? Most likely. Handicapped? Absolutely. They can’t reason through every day life on their own much less the SCOTUS decision. Logic and reasoning, the most valuable process a human can have, has been surgically removed and what is left is a totally crippled society. When we’re all gone, it’s all gone.
Unless another leader attracts their attention, yes. For the most part, I believe that the reason is laziness or perhaps an indoctrination to the idea that they are average, and that average people don't have the capabilities of figuring anything out for themselves. Probably both, since knowing what's going on is easy if you can simply read the Washington Post and believe everything they say, or search for the opinions of experts on any given topic, accepting that as truth. That would be easy and, since these aren't people who are going to be called upon to do anything other than voting every two or four years, I suppose it works for them. Even when it comes to voting, very few people examine any of the issues or take the time to research any of the candidates. Instead, they have already joined a team, Republican or Democrat, so they look to what their party leaders have to say, as if these leaders or the pundits on television were the experts when it comes to politics. Unless something about a particular candidate rubs them the wrong way, either because they're told that he tweets too much or that he doesn't seem to show the appropriate deference to someone they view as being deserving of it, or unless that candidate looks particularly good, speaks well, or cleans up nicely behind a podium. Even then, the perceived experts will generally be able to put people back on track. I do think laziness has a lot to do with this. The Washington Post will keep me up-to-date on current affairs, the experts will tell me what to think about any issues that might be presented in the news, and I can vote for my team on election day. I get that. What I don't get is that so many of these low-information voters get all worked up over these things that they know nothing about. In that sense, laziness doesn't equate to apathy. I could respect apathy. It's reasonable to believe that, as an average person, I can't meaningfully affect anything that's going on in the world and my vote doesn't count, anyhow. That could be a reasonable position to hold. But then, why do they respond when they're told that they're supposed to be upset about something?
I agree to a certain point. I agree that as far as birth control and all the other issues that affect only the life of the woman, any decision should be her choice. In the case of pregnancy, we have another human life to consider. At what point one considers the fetus to be a human baby is where the problem begins. However, the 1973 SC decision, made Federal law, concerning abortion, spelling out who had authority over a woman's body, by trimester, was unconstitutional. The 1973 decision hinged on the testimony of Norma McCorvey, a Texas woman that claimed she was raped by a gang of black men and sought an abortion but Texas did not allow abortions so she was denied and claimed she suffered great mental damage from giving birth and giving up the child for adoption. Before she died she confessed to fabricating the story of rape and admitted her wanting an abortion was one of convenience. Anyone with an opinion on Roe VS Wade needs to read her story in its entirety. Her testimony is what convinced the Supreme Court that Texas had denied her a constitutional right by making her carry and give birth to a child from rape. Notice that the concocted rape was by BLACK men, an entire gang of them, a lie meant to put a racial element showing that her suffering was not just rape, but an interracial rape that made abortion more important. for her mental health. Let that sink in. Read her story. Norma McCorvey - Wikipedia Here is a synopsis of the 1973 decision. It seems to me the 1973 SC became a legislative branch instead of a judicial. The Court divided the pregnancy period into three trimesters. During the first trimester, the decision to terminate the pregnancy was solely at the discretion of the woman. After the first trimester, the state could “regulate procedure.” During the second trimester, the state could regulate (but not outlaw) abortions in the interests of the mother’s health. After the second trimester, the fetus became viable, and the state could regulate or outlaw abortions in the interest of the potential life except when necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother. Abortion in the USA doesn't observe these guidelines in liberal states. Babies are even killed after birth with the claim of some "health" condition. These babies taking their first breath bring a lot of money on the baby trade market. Why do pro-abortion people oppose oversight and regulated disposal of fetuses and murdered babies? Why doesn't a state official have to check and make sure each abortion was lawful and the fetus or baby is disposed of in a crematory? We know why. Abortion is about big money and genocide of the Black race. When the party of the KKK, the Democrats controls the narratives, their hidden agenda is shielded and we hear the false narrative that all women are in danger of losing their decision-making about their bodies. I don't see the overturning of this unconstitutional overreach has anything to do with denying any woman the right to do with her body as she pleases. If you don't like the will of the majority of the people in your state, then move to another. I see this just decision as the start of dismantling the multi-billion-dollar trade in selling fetuses and babies' parts to the highest bidder. Any woman can have an abortion just by taking a pill or eating certain herbs. The narrative is that this is unsafe and that an abortion in that Federally funded clinic is safe. The truth is the abortion clinics and doctors do not profit from self-imposed abortions. I have never read any documented article from women taking abortion pills dying, but many deaths and lifelong injuries have been documented from these abortion clinics. The big lie is that this 2022 ruling will make getting these pills or herbs illegal. What a lie just to keep Federally sponsored human baby parts factories in business. I am in favor of early-stage abortions in a regulated medical setting if circumstances warrant it. I am opposed to killing fully formed babies! My message to all the duped women out claiming their rights have been taken by the 2022 SC is to understand the Constitution and then understand the lucrative abortion trade. Hold an aborted fetus or baby and tell me it isn't human. Also understand you don't speak for me! Got it! I have a voice and I am tired of you claiming you speak for me. I have first-hand experience most of you twips don't have. I suffered a natural abortion or a miscarriage at just past 6 months. My daughter was fully formed and lived for an hour in an incubator. I got to hold her only after she had died. If you tell me you would purposely abort a 6 month fully formed baby for your convenience with no medical reason, I will call you a murderer. PERIOD! I once buried a 3-month old fetus for a friend that had a miscarriage. I buried a human child that day, not an animal that the mother should have the right to choose to have killed because she changed her mind. When a woman becomes pregnant they need to decide at that point. Talking a pill at that point is safe and easy and no one else needs to know. That is privacy, not a twisting of the 14th amendment. Should a medical reason develop later during pregnancy, then the mother should make her decision based on what is best for her, both physically and mentally. It is no one else's decision. However, neither of these scenarios makes money for the fetus and baby parts traffickers, so the battle rages forward.