Not defending her. She doesn't need me to defend her. Shes a grown ass lady who we have all seen is very capable of taking care of herself. I'm Just pointing out what I see.
This is a public discussion board. There are no private conversations. You can DM anyone with a private remark. Anything, anything, to avoid talking about the rights and lives of women.
Chris. Did i not say i didn't want to discuss other people yesterday? Have you not seen the continual posts quoting me and for me? So all these people including you, can keep it going, but if i do i need to let it go??? im only responding to others. I dont see you asking them to move on and let it go…. i was ready to let it go yesterday but if you think im not going to respond to posts about me… that's pretty one sided bias… And who lives in who's head when im having a respectable conversation, she cant help but blurt shit out aimed at me? And don't bring up she didn't use my name. Were not that naive. Men are in her head and it upset her. But yeah. Shes in my head. Lol. Soo one sided…
If you have an issue with someone, the problem may lie with either or both of you. If you have issues with everyone, the problem likely lies with you.
People are absolutely trying to restrict their rights. Women have the right to be pissed off about that and voice that displeasure. Are you trying to attack her freedom of speech? Nobody said you were trying to restrict anything. You, however, responded in a defensive mannor as though you have a guilty conscience.
I think one thing that people should understand when entering a discussion involving certain people's rights is that it actually matters a lot to those people--it's not simply a dry, academic discussion. It's fine if you, as someone unaffected, want to participate in the conversation. But I think you should be respectful of the fact that you have no skin in the game and others do, so you may not get terribly polite responses if you come in "just asking questions" or playing devil's advocate. Feigning or actually being hurt that this person who's actual rights are at stake didn't carefully consider and respect your feelings about something that doesn't affect you is a bad idea. This isn't a "social justice" principle, it's common sense--if your friend has a child dealing with a life-threatening issue, it's one thing to talk with them about it; it's entirely another to believe your thoughts and feelings on the matter should be given equal weight and treatment. But on this forum, it's usually going to crop up in connection with discussions involving people's rights within society. It's something to consider when discussing women's rights, race relations or LGBTQ+ rights.
The Supreme court has left the Texas abortion law in affect but has allowed the right for Clinics to challenge it.
There are reasons why people do things and not just because they're born evil. Therefor wouldn't it make sense to try to understand why people have abortions and failing at that, since we all do, treat it as one of the mysteries of life. This would be better than a counterproductive attitude of blaming her for making a poor choice. No, it's not some poor choice that you can browbeat out of a woman.
We learn by teaching but not by cramming it down someone's throat. I'm a firm believer that you catch more ants with honey than vinegar (my grandmother's saying and she had a million of them). Side note - My favorite grandmother saying "Oh, what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive."
Yes. The law was challenged It went to the Texas supreme court who of course were cool with the law. It then was appealed to the supreme court The Supreme court ruled to leave the Texas law in tact 5-4 They also ruled that a suit can be brought again It will go again to the Texas supreme court who will keep the law legal It will then go back to the SC Around and around we go
I would suggest people with this point of view would vote for politicians and laws which support sex education, birth control, and a woman's right to choose then. As well as generally supporting reducing the pay gap between men and women, and generally improving access to education, healthcare and improving the social safety net. Since those all do a better job of lower abortion rates than voting for people who don't support those things.
Then the SC can refuse to hear it... Nothing changes in Texas and there is legal precedent for other states to do the same. Ugh...
https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2021/12/01/...-court-viability-standard-analysis/index.html Judge John Roberts led a dissent stating that Texas's effort was to overturn Roe V Wade and they shouldn't have allowed the law to stand. He is also trying to broker a deal with the 5 other conservative judges who ruled for the law, to gut Roe V Wade but preserve some right to abortion for women. He would ask for abortions to be illegal after viability...23 weeks but would also allow states to ban abortions at 15 weeks as Mississippi has done. He wouldn't completely ban abortions
