Dude, You Are Weird

~ Clarissa

Because Trump will murder us. And put us in jail. Immediately after murdering us.

I know, I know, Walz is talking about abortion. I’ve always been pro-abortion rights, and it’s no secret. But I can just imagine a guy in my life – my husband, father, cousin or neighbor – telling me that he’s going to vote for Harris so that I get a chance to abort. I’m not entirely sure if it would be more disturbing if coming from a husband or a neighbor.

I’m the most peaceful, easy-going wife on the planet but I can’t say I’d react positively to the message of, “It’s OK, honey, you can now abort away, I’ve made sure it’s all fine.”

Unknown's avatar

Published by Clarissa

59 thoughts on “Dude, You Are Weird”

  1. This pandering to men is getting really pathetic now. Maybe they shouldn’t have been treating every other man like a rapist simply by looking at a woman, or put in place policies that are proven to negatively affect boys and men. This correction is about a decade too late.

    My disdain for Biden-Harris and their ilk is approaching Trump’s. Biden-Harris is all about words, rhetoric, and feel good BS. Supporting Ukraine against Russia has been a key issue for me, and they are totally blowing it:

    “If Biden and Harris refuse to provide Ukraine the weapons and authority it needs to win and instead consign it to a slow, grinding war of attrition, then their inspiring rhetoric rings hollow. What they really offer is just a more protracted version of Trump’s plan to pull the plug on U.S. support for Ukraine. “

    https://thehill.com/opinion/international/4907786-ukraine-policy-biden-harris-trump/

    Just nice kind words as they stab you in the back.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

  2. Love Trump Whooop. Hate the UN Booooooooooooo.

    Why does the United Nations intervention always result in wars?

    Third-party mediations fail as did Chamberlain’s Appeasement Policy Two-State Solution! These out side nation “mediators” never act as neutral facilitators! Assisted negotiations effectively means Great Power Two-State Solutions which always result in more wars. Great-Power “problem-solving” solutions: only exist as rhetoric propaganda by which Great Power dominate the region; a form of colonialism. Great-Power intervention has never accomplished face to face negotiations between the warring local factions; the Arab Israeli conflict of 1948 and 1967 serves as proof that the two state solution only serves Great Power imperialist bigoted narrow interests.

    Great Power intervention always involves map making, and changing of international borders to meet the strategic interests of Great Powers; UN SCR 242 serves as an excellent example of Great Power imperialism. Britain cut off Kuwait from Iraq and deprived Iraq access to a viable sea-port, making this oil exporting nation – land locked! The two-state solution of post WWII Korea and Vietnam, a disaster on par with the division of India into two hostile states.

    The division between Kuwait and Iraq remains a historical legacy, shaped by colonial interests, geopolitical calculations, and regional dynamics. The Korean War produced unstable Great Power conflicts that threaten World War to this very day! Vietnam only resolved with the military defeat of both France and the United States! The British division of Bengal vs. Panjab resulted in multiple wars fought between nuclear armed India vs. Pakistan.

    The arbitrary borders drawn by colonial powers, such as the British division of Bengal and Punjab, have had lasting impacts on regional stability. The partition of India in 1947 resulted in mass migrations, communal violence, and unresolved territorial disputes, particularly over Kashmir, which continues to be a flashpoint between India and Pakistan.

    The arrogance of Great Powers redrawing the maps and determining inter-state borders between nations remains a testament to the absolute corruption of Great Power post-colonialism & determination of inter-national borders. The heavily fortified Demilitarized Zone (DMZ) stands as a stark reminder of criminal Great Power politics ie 3rd Party mediations to enforce conflict resolutions! Nixon’s illegal bombing of Cambodia, the US bombed that country into the Stone Age and directly responsible for the rise of Pol Pot!

    Bengal and Punjab provinces were particularly affected by British imperialism. The resulting violence, mass migration, and communal tensions left scars that persist to this day, the result of the criminal war crime known as “the Pax Britannica Empire”; the time period roughly bounded by the Napoleonic Wars and World War I. India and Pakistan have fought multiple wars, and the Kashmir conflict remains unresolved.

    Powerful nations always have their own interests whose importance they always prioritize; which most definitely influences their role as “facilitators of peace”. When Great Powers propose solutions, such as two-state frameworks of UNSCR 242, or expressed in PM Chamberlain’s cowardice Appeasement Policy which divided the Czech Republic in 1938; this Great Power search for peace, (an absolute rhetoric propaganda joke) “inadvertently” perpetuated World War II. These two-State solutions fail to address the underlying issues or the aspirations of the involved parties.

    Neville Chamberlain’s policy of appeasement in the late 1930s, a prime example of how Great Power interventions, specifically the post WWI League of Nations – failed and ultimately collapsed. By conceding to Hitler’s demands for the Sudetenland, Chamberlain utterly ignored the League of Nations when that recent political invention failed to meet his narrow interests. His unilateral objective to avoid war ultimately emboldened Nazi aggression; which contributed to the outbreak of World War II. This policy, often criticized as sacrificing the sovereignty of smaller nations, in this specific Case: Czechoslovakia – without their consent. The same holds true with UNSCR 242.

    The redrawing of borders by Great Powers perhaps best expressed through the post Napoleonic war which redrew the borders of Europe! The Congress of Vienna (1814–1815) redrew the map of Europe after the Napoleonic Wars. It aimed to restore stability but also reflected the interests of the Great Powers. The Congress of Vienna remains the most extensive treaty Europe had ever seen, and its decisions had far-reaching consequences.

    The Congress of Vienna redrew the map of Europe, but its decisions, definitely not universally accepted. While it achieved immediate reactionary goals, discontent simmered beneath the surface. Fast-forward to the mid-19th century. A wave of nationalism swept through Europe, fueled by factors like the Enlightenment, the Industrial Revolution, and the defeat of Napoleon.

    Great Powers often engage in “map-making” that reflects their strategic interests rather than the needs or desires of the local populations. This practice can lead to the imposition of solutions that do not address the underlying issues, as seen in the Congress of Vienna and its aftermath; redrawing borders failed miserably to account for rising nationalist sentiments. UNSCR 242 would impose 1) a forced population withdraw of some 1 million Israelis from Samaria. 2) It would divide Jerusalem like post WWII Berlin and Germany into two warring hostile States. The Cold War during the Cuban missile crisis brought the World to the brink of nuclear war.

    The notion that Great Powers can act as neutral facilitators by definition – undermined by their aristocratic feudal-like vested interests. Their selfish narrow interventions often prioritize geopolitical stability over genuine conflict resolution, leading to outcomes that perpetuate a Lord/serf violence – rather than foster peace. The Congress of Vienna set the stage for significant historical developments, including the revolutions of 1848 and Bismarck’s unification of Germany.

    Bismarck’s legacy as the architect of German unification shaped not only Germany’s trajectory but also Europe’s geopolitical landscape. The proclamation of the German Empire in 1871 marked the end of fragmented German nations; it witnessed the birth of a powerful nation which shattered the balance of power in European politics. The unification ceremony, deliberately held at the Palace of Versailles, sent a powerful message of military might and conquest. Germany’s ambitions as a dominant European power became evident. The German Empire’s emergence had lasting effects on France, the Netherlands, Italy, and the states.

    Nixon’s illegal secret bombing of Cambodia during the Vietnam War, as if Washington could bomb a nation not at war with the United States! This war crime produced devastating consequences. Unexploded bombs continued to maim and kill people for decades. It also contributed to the rise of the Khmer Rouge regime, leading to one of the worst genocides of the 20th century. Nixon and Kissinger never publicly hung for their war-crimes against humanity.

    These historical examples illustrate a consistent pattern where Great Power, United Nations interventions, rather than resolving conflicts, invariably produce further instability and violence. The legacy of these interventions serves as a cautionary tale about the complexities of international diplomacy and the need for genuine engagement with the affected parties rather than top-down solutions imposed by external powers, like the post WWII established United Nations non-sense.

    Great Powers often prioritize their strategic goals over genuine conflict resolution, their narrow strategic interests always exacerbate tensions rather than alleviate and reduce local conflicts. The idea that Great Powers can serve as neutral facilitators, ignores the plain facts on the ground. Great Power/UN politics – their ignoble narrow strategic interests always undermines their “peace peace” rhetoric propaganda lies. UN peace “solutions” fail to address the key underlying issues, which define the Arab Israeli wars! Specifically the absolute refusal for Arab racism to stop and accept the Jewish equal rights to Self-determination. Historical interventions have only resulted in further conflicts. Hence the demand to disband the United Nations as a post WWII failure. Modestly suggesting a need for a reassessment of how external actors engage in international disputes.

    Like

    Reply

  4. If people do not find this kind of political propaganda creepy, disgusting, inappropriate and downright insulting, there really is no hope and they DESERVE the politicians they elect.

    There is no excuse, no justification, no defence for this type of pandering and posturing: even when it can be explained away as a mere grab for power, it shows the overbearing arrogance of the bully against the intellectually challenged.

    But that is really what characterises Democrat politicians these days: overbearing, arrogant, preposterous panderers and posturers with not a trace of intellectual depth or human dignity in evidence.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

      1. Nah, this is how the Right speaks now, from Tucker Carlson to Tim Pool and all those who get funding from Russia or want to get Putin’s approval.

        The question is why you’re voting for him, when he might be President if anything ever happens to the almost 80-year-old any moment he’s in office.

        Like

        Reply

        1. The point is that everybody speaks like that now. Left and right speak in an identical way that stems from 40 years of conditioning where America was consistently presented as evil. Or Canada, if you are Canadian. Or the West in general.

          If you allowed yourself to step a millimeter outside of the confines of your partisanship, you’d be able to observe something interesting here. Enough slogans. Boring, repetitive. Look instead at how politicians under the age of 65 are simply incapable of anything beyond self-hatred.

          Like

          Reply

          1. But there’s an election afoot. This is the season of partisanship. If Vance becomes President (and it’s more likely than not, considering Trump’s age), this will reflect in policy.

            Like

            Reply

  6. It is truly perverse for men to be “standing up” for the right to have their grandchildren aborted.

    If they were, instead, promising to help support said grandkid if the daughter wished to carry to term, I’d be far more impressed.

    Liked by 4 people

    Reply

      2. You are so biased, you took a running leap over the phrase “if the daughter wished to carry to term”

        Is she not human if she wants more options? You are only a whole human being if you want to end a pregnancy, but not if you have mixed feelings about it, or would rather carry it, even though your circumstances might not be ideal?

        Liked by 3 people

        Reply

    2. Dems are doing a terrible job at this, but abortion being an issue (and it being on TV, radio, and billboards where children see it) is 100% on Republicans who always have been the ones obsessed with the issue. They think liberals are a death cult and liberal women are sacrificing babies who are lining up to get 8 & 9 month abortions. It’s every bit as twisted as the most extreme liberal woke stuff.

      Dems are the ones who absentmindedly never got around to codifying abortion rights post Roe. Conservatives meanwhile immediately went to work, enacted hundreds of restrictive state laws (many absurdly violating the constitution), bombing clinics, sending their kids to special pro-life activist camps, and constantly protesting, public praying, and shoving bizarre, disgusting propaganda down everyone’s throats. Yes we are all sick of it.

      Sorry for the rant but I’m tired of seeing complaints about the issue from conservatives implying that abortion is some kind of weird obsession (and invention) of liberals. It’s classic gaslighting. The second CONSERVATIVES get over their sick obsession (and make no mistake it IS about controlling women) is the moment it will go away as a political issue. I agree it shouldn’t be a men’s issue. But it was men who took over women’s health care, who wrote the church rules. The moment they back off, we can all go back to minding our own business.

      Like

      Reply

      1. “abortion being an issue.. .is 100% on Republicans who always have been the ones obsessed with the issue”

        IIRC it wasn’t a big issue when the RvW decision came down. But it became a culture war issue used to increase the republican base with evangelicals by the early 1980s (in a pretty openly calculated way as I recall) and republicans were astonishingly careful about keeping the decision in place in order not to lose a key issue that kept the base fired up.

        Overturning RvW (no matter what an individual thinks about abortion) was maybe the most significant sign of real political realignment since people started warbling about it in 2016.

        Debate about the morals of abortion now seems almost completely futile and fatuous to me and I resent it being made a centerpiece of policy.

        People who think abortion is morally wrong in most/all circumstances should be free to try to convince women to not abort and to give them material aid when that is a relevant concern and/or moral support and/or find other options for them and/or legislate at the state level (where it constitutionally probably belongs). I have no sympathy for those who protest at places where abortion happens and I assume most of those people are freaks and/or attention whores.

        People who think it is an acceptable response to an unwanted or dangerous pregnancy should concentrate on legislation at the state level (where it constitutionally probably belongs) and/or facilitating access when limited at the state level (transporting women who want/need it to places where they can get it etc). On the other hand it is a serious issue that will have lifelong implications for a woman and idiots making tiktok videos about dancing on their way to the abortion clinic are also freakish attention shores.

        Efforts to keep in the national spotlight are almost all bad faith actors.

        Like

        Reply

        1. I agree with most of this except making it a state issue which is nonsensical, and overlooks that transporting women (or drugs) across state lines is already being criminalized, or at least they are talking about it.

          And yes thanks for the reminder about the religious conservative role in making abortion the top concern when appointed SCOTUS picks and in fact the deciding factor in giving Trump enough votes to win the 2016 election, and then to overturning Roe.

          Also both pro-life proselytizing and the leftist obsessions like race, trans etc provide ample opportunity for virtue signalling, as methylethyl and bluebird are demonstrating above. Enough already.

          It’s all beyond tiresome.

          Like

          Reply

          1. “making it a state issue which is nonsensical”,”

            if you completely ignore the constitution… states were designed to be laboratories of democracy with the feds only involved in issues that are not feasible for states to handle (like national defense) or to adjudicate issues between states.

            different policies around abortion (about which there is no national consensus) by state seems very democratic.

            “overlooks that transporting women (or drugs) across state lines is already being criminalized”

            seems flagrantly non-constitutional… would never hold up to any challenge.

            Liked by 1 person

            Reply

            1. Then you would be shocked at the state laws that are already on the books. Doctors forced to do unnecessary procedures (like 6-week ultrasounds that require vaginal probes-yes that’s right, forced vaginal penetration), lie to patients about them and about the effects of abortion, forced 3-day waiting periods that make it impossible for working women who have to travel, tons more. Vance himself has advocated for the crossing state lines restrictions re abortions, and it’s in the 2025 document. Don’t you think they’ve thought of that one? And how do you think they keep track of who is pregnant and who had abortions vs miscarriages? They have to track womens cycles, have access to medical records and so on.

              Sooooooo much easier to mind one’s own business.

              Leaving it to the states is illogical because it’s an individual choice. So all the women in one state feel one way and all the women in another agree to another view? What if a state law passes by a slim margin? The woman has to move? What if there is disagreement within her family-they split up? It also violates our right to privacy so covered by 4A already. Roe was the right decision (I know not everyone agrees).

              Like

              Reply

              1. You’re right. Nobody should lie about the consequences of abortions. How many women who go in for an abortion are able to give truly informed consent? Are they told about the risk of post-surgical complications such as infection, sepsis, and haemorrhage? About scarring and the long-term risks to their fertility and the integrity of the uterus, in case they want to have children in the future?

                Like

              2. **I can guarantee they are not, because in the US, *we don’t even keep proper statistics on those things*.

                Why is that? Because every time an attempt is made to do so, the abortion-rights activists freak out and scream that their rights are being infringed on. What rights? The right to substandard healthcare, lack of transparency, and blind medical risks?

                Like

              3. In a country that managed to plunge itself into a fentanyl epidemic, it’s bizarre to argue that getting access to abortion pills is hard. This entire argument is from back in 1992 and has zero relevance to today’s realities. “Art lover” is clearly not in the age group that can require abortion based on age, given on the staleness of this information. 🙂

                Like

              4. Clarissa, why don’t you share your argument for the right to abortion. I don’t think we’ve heard it for a while. Kind of hard to imagine at this point.

                Like

              5. I had a terrible time during my first pregnancy. Very severe symptoms. PUPPPS alone was hell on Earth. It feels like you are on fire, all day, all night. The skin cracks and oozes pus. For months. And the gestational diabetes. And the gestational hypertension.

                And all I got in the end was a tiny coffin.

                There’s no guarantee. You can go through every torture, descend into the pits of hell. And still end up crying at the cemetery. There’s no baby at 5 weeks of pregnancy. Sometimes, there’s no baby at 39 weeks and 2 days.

                Knowing that it was going to be all the same symptoms, I went on with the second pregnancy. It wasn’t even a question for me. I knew I was doing it. But I know what kind of inner resources it takes to do that. I also know that most people don’t have them.

                This is my argument. Nobody should be forced to undergo what I did.

                Liked by 1 person

              7. And it went for the full 8 weeks post-birth.

                As in everything, I had the most extreme version. Story of my life. My gestational diabetes was insulin-resistant and raging because why should I have a mild version of anything?

                Like

              8. Thank you Clarissa, that’s a powerful answer- womens lives are complex and full of hard personal decisions and pregnancy can be harrowing. So why all the sarcasm and mockery? And why direct it at me (when you aren’t directing it at the twitter feminist scapegoat of the day) and not the judgemental anti-choice commenters if you feel this strongly?

                You now claim it’s not an issue anymore, yet you recently mocked those concerned about a woman who needed care *after* getting pills but having complications.

                And yes I’m old, haha what a zinger, but no, it isn’t only pills now, and no, everyone doesn’t get the care they need, and yes there can be complications, including life threatening ones even with pills (see above).

                Like

              9. It’s because you have zero self-awareness and you don’t realize how you come off to people. You can’t even respond to a comment about something clearly tragic like a normal human being. It must be very hard for you to live in the world with such a moral flaw. I believe that you sincerely don’t understand. But I can’t help you because you refuse to see yourself honestly.

                I don’t know, try to re-read what I wrote and think about how a normal person would react. Remember situations from movies or books. I’m sure you’ve come across a few examples of how this usually happens between humans.

                Like

              10. What are you talking about? Yes your situation was hard, and tragic, and I’m sorry you went through that. The same applies to all women, women who deserve our respect, not judgement. Women who also deserve their privacy.

                We can never know what is going on in people’s lives. We need to stop pretending it can all be made better with a little more morality or some good old-fashioned help from the community (as is being suggested here by some of the commenters).

                So much disdain for women on here regarding this issue – also noticed feminism was removed from the header. Not surprised.

                Like

              11. “you would be shocked at the state laws that are already on the books”

                Why would I be shocked? State laws (some times state constitutions) are full of unconstitutional nonsense that’s not enforced.

                The best way to legally resolve contentious issues like abortion where there is no national consensus is by leaving it to the states and if particular states overstep their constitutional bounds then the laws get struck down when challenged.

                Alternately change the constitution through an amendment though the changes of either side being able to do that are…. vanishingly small.

                Those who care a lot can work to either convince people (peacefully and not in confrontational crazy ways) to change their minds and/or behavior.

                None of this is fun or easy but it’s not supposed to be. It’s an issue with very profound beliefs on both sides and women are often put in a position where no option is especially good and quick fix judicial remedies aren’t going to change anything.

                Liked by 1 person

              12. “much easier to mind one’s own business”

                Nice try, not falling for that one again… people just minding their business let medical quacks create a lucrative business out of mutilating vulnerable teenagers and condemning them to a lifetime of expensive medical care.

                Liked by 1 person

              13. “None of this is fun or easy but it’s not supposed to be.”

                Wow thanks for the tip. Yes lets put it to the states, that will enact unconstitutional laws (already have, but it’s gotten much worse since Roe was overturned) then those will be challenged and one day in the far distant future maybe just maybe, though probably not….

                OR mind your own fucking business. What a concept.

                Like

  7. @art lover

    “we can all go back to minding our own business.”

    What is “our business”? Abortion is not just a woman’s issue. First of all there is the man who impregnated the woman: does he exist at all? Then there are the men in the abortion clinics: doctors, nurses, ancillary staff: or do people think that all abortionists are women?

    “Conservatives think […] liberal women are sacrificing babies who are lining up to get 8 & 9 month abortions“

    One shouldn’t caricature people, on either side. Admittedly, it is difficult to have full data, but there are 7 US states and D.C. where abortion IS allowed to the point of birth, so it must happen, or else why have the laws on the statute books? In any case there is ample evidence easily available by former abortionists that it does take place, that it’s not a recent phenomenon, and that it’s much more frequent than people care to admit. There is a reason why in countries where voluntary termination of pregnancy is legal, it is restricted to the first trimester generally, in some countries up to the 15th week. All other abortions allowed are medical abortions (ie, not voluntary) to save the woman’s life.

    This is not a “weird obsession“, as you put it, it’s a matter of life and death, and as such it concerns all humanity. Intellectual honesty would demand that people in favour of abortion enounced clearly that women’s autonomy means that a woman should have the right of life and death over the fetus she carries in her womb. This is a claim, it is not a truth. Similarly, so-called pro-life people should change their ineffectual moniker and start calling themselves anti-abortion. Their counterclaim would be that it is unreasonable for pregnant women to have the right to decide what to do with their body and the body of their fetus. No other individual has the absolute right to dispose of his body without restrictions while alive: why should pregnant women? The body inside their body is not theirs, and as such it should not be disposed of at will.

    Seventy years of relentless liberal and neoliberal indoctrination over the sovereign will of the individual – but the seeds of this discourse go back to much earlier times and reside in Romantic thought and ideas – have obfuscated this issue.

    I do not hope nor do I intend to persuade anyone with my arguments: only you yourself can do it and no one else. I know, because I used to be an abortion rights activist for almost 30 years and it was not until I started thinking seriously about this issue that I changed my mind: no one else could have done it but me.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

      1. Decades ago, I was chairman (chairwoman?) of a local pro-life group, and was sometimes called on to debate the subject with abortion advocates. It always boggled my mind when they accused me of hypocrisy on the grounds that if my own young unmarried daughter were pregnant, I’d hustle her off to the nearest abortion clinic. In the first place, these people didn’t know me from the man in the moon, but they somehow knew what I would do in a difficult situation? In the second, even if I were the flaming hypocrite they claimed I was, that would have exactly zero bearing on the moral or legal argument. But most of all, I couldn’t comprehend the mindset of anyone who takes it on faith that I care more about the children of total strangers than I would care about my own grandchild. What can you say to someone that deranged?

        Liked by 1 person

        Reply

        1. I know a very kind older couple, deeply devoted to the cause, who take in total strangers– women who are pregnant, in kind of dire straits, but don’t want to abort– and offer them free room and board in their home during pregnancy and if needed (like, if they want to keep the baby rather than adopt it out– they’ve done both) for some time after, and act like parents, take them to prenatal appointments and pregnancy classes, help them access resources they’re eligible for, help them figure out what housing and employment look like in the longer term. They are really amazing people. That’s a far, far bigger commitment than helping women access abortion, and I’d love to see more of it. Perhaps there’s more going on than we know about: it’s not like they advertise. My church supports a similar mission that’s more of a group home structure. Nobody is stopping these women from aborting their babies. Access is easy, it’s completely legal. This is specifically a ministry for women who’d rather not abort, but don’t currently have their lives and finances in order to be able to have a baby. There are ministries that help with that, and they *always* have more applicants than they have openings.

          That says a lot about people’s real thoughts about “choice”. They claim to support “choice” but there’s really only one choice they actually support.

          Liked by 2 people

          Reply

    2. Excellent job proving my point which went right over your head, Avi. You pivoted right back to trying to debate me on abortion. Not gonna happen. Then you went on and on and on, showing how obsessed you are. Same for the others who commented.

      Pro-life discourse is the mirror image of leftist’s white supremacy discourse. Debating either is a waste of time.

      Like

      Reply

  8. Like

    Reply

    1. Bill Gates has apparently been out there promoting AI use to scan *the entire internet* for anything that blasphemes the Holy Sacrament of the Vaccine, and scrub it.

      These people don’t just hate free speech. They’re terrified of it.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

  9. “State laws (some times state constitutions) are full of unconstitutional nonsense that’s not enforced.”

    @Cliff: Were you around, back when we *amended the state constitution* to ban pig farrowing crates, and mandate high-speed rail? I was so relieved when we were finally able to repeal those! Proposals to amend the state constitution are almost universally *dumb*. They put it on the ballot because they couldn’t get it through the state legislature for completely normal rational reasons, like, you know, we don’t have a high speed rail in the budget. And you can’t fix the pig-crate problem without first fixing the pigs (current commercial breeds are bad mothers, because we’ve bred that out of them in favor of fast growth!).

    Like

    Reply

    2. “I’m talking about women”

      That’s your problem… you’re talking about a personal issue and I’m talking about legal and constitutional questions.
      I have no intention of getting into the morality of abortion here, I’m just talking about practical legal questions and the constitution.

      Like

      Reply

      1. Yeah it’s personal- that’s my whole point and the current topic of discussion- but you want the state to control it (or rather debate it til the end of time). Because women are like trans kids, or pigs, and can’t be trusted to make their own private decisions.

        Like

        Reply

        1. “you want the state to control it (or rather debate it til the end of time)”

          I’m not sure if I’ve actually expressed my personal opinion about abortion… this could be any issue about which people have deeply held convictions, that’s not clearly covered by the constitution on which there’s no national consensus….
          AFAIK after RvW was overturned and given back to the states, some states enacted safeguards to the procedure (in accordance with local majority opinion) and others began restrictions (again, in accordance with local majority opinion).
          That’s probably for the long term best.
          Efforts to keep it in the national spotlight (without any attempt to amend the constitution) are not to be trusted.
          Legislation by judicial fiat is a disruption of how policy is supposed to work.

          Like

          Reply

          1. You don’t really care AND you don’t have an opinion

            BUT

            blah blah blah

            yes folks mansplaining is overused, but it’s real.

            That’s the crux of the problem. Empty controlling windbags thinking they know better than women themselves (yes- that’s how the problem started and that’s what got us here, whining about feminists).

            Like

            Reply

            2. “You don’t really care AND you don’t have an opinion”

              It’s not my issue but I do have a fairly strong opinion (if fuzzy around the edges) and have voiced it here before when it was relevant. But that’s irrelevant to the present discussion of the constitutional status of abortion laws. Dragging in personal opinions into that question just muddies the waters.

              If you can’t discuss the issue in terms of the constitution and federal vs state law then…. that’s not my problem and I have no interest in any other opinion of yours in that discussion.

              Liked by 1 person

              Reply

              1. “You tried to talk about something that wasn’t ME”

                This was never about me, I haven’t spoken about myself once. But you are limited, so I’ll let it go.

                >If you can’t discuss the issue in terms of the constitution and federal vs state law then

                LOL that was not the topic of discussion (that was just one thread) but fine with me. A useless bunch of flying monkeys you are on this blog anyway.

                Like

              3. Personal to the women whose rights are being dismantled by religious prudes. Personal as in it’s their decision not yours. Nothing to do with me. Like Clarissa joked (weirdly) I’m old. Try re-reading the thread.

                Like

              4. So… it’s personal, but it’s strictly about other women, not you.

                And, you want to control the direction of the discussion so that only personal feelz matter here, and not legal perspectives?

                Any direction of conversation that isn’t directly suggested by you is not permitted, because it is your combox, and you make the rules.

                Have I got the unstated rules correct?

                I am unusually bad at unstated social rules, so you’ll have to help me out here.

                Like

          1. I’d sign a petition to get that on the ballot!

            –If only as an excuse to initiate a public education campaign about what does and does not belong in the frigging *state constitution*.

            Like

            Reply

Leave a reply to Stringer Bell Cancel reply