Scene at the local social services office in Yeswehavelostourgoddamnedminds, AR: A young woman walks up to the front desk, "I'd like to sign up my daughter for financial aid and the SNAP program". "Yes ma'am. Her name?" "Tawny Lynn Bakker". "Age?" "6 weeks." "Did you say 6 weeks?" "Yes. She eats like a horse and can't hold down a job. She has been unemployed for the past month and a half and she refuses to even go out for interviews". "But ma'am she's in your womb". That's right and she's as much a citizen as you or I so show me how to fill out these forms.....
Even a batshit conservative court would have trouble telling women they don't get bodily autonomy because that opens a whole can of worms about organ donation, castle doctrine, self-defense, etc.---all things Republicans would be hard-pressed to give up even for abortion.
You underestimate "conservative" willingness to "forget" that women are in fact people.
There was a fantastic thread on Twitter a year or two ago, which correctly pointed out that every unwanted pregnancy could ultimately be tracked down to a man not wanting to wear a condom, because a few seconds of even more pleasure for the man is more important than nine months / eighteen years of potential fallout for the woman.
So when, say, older Catholic women know they can no longer carry a baby to term and still insist on having unprotected sex that ends in a miscarriage. Is she guilty of negligent homicide?
Speaking of chickens, there is a difference between a chicken and an egg. Anyone who doesn't believe me should try baking a cake using chickens instead of eggs.
That's why there are two different words for them.
Depending on exactly how this bill and "all the rights, privileges, and immunities" are worded a pregnant woman might get to vote twice since she's two citizens. Babies don't have an age at birth. They're zero years old. Until birth, then, the fetus is part of the woman and should be considered the same age.
They blow off details like that without noticing them because they aren't scholars, they aren't rational-- that is typical elitist Harvard University bullshit. I mean-- you know how little they'd mind those arguments. Even in the Supreme Court-- good luck with it.
I recall reading about a month ago a similar bill, conferring all rights and privileges etc but then launching into paragraph upon paragraph of exceptions to those rights because the whole fucking thing is stupid and they knew it.
It's probably the only time conservative men have ever expressed a positive interest in menstruation.
Although I assume they still think it's pretty icky.
SHITHOLE state!
Good, I had the same sort of response from my family doctor (a very rude man, who I never liked anyway) I always preferred women's clinics after that.
If only they were even half as devoted towards protecting born life (that is not them) as they are to protecting unborn ones.
I don't even like tracking my own!
Scene at the local social services office in Yeswehavelostourgoddamnedminds, AR: A young woman walks up to the front desk, "I'd like to sign up my daughter for financial aid and the SNAP program". "Yes ma'am. Her name?" "Tawny Lynn Bakker". "Age?" "6 weeks." "Did you say 6 weeks?" "Yes. She eats like a horse and can't hold down a job. She has been unemployed for the past month and a half and she refuses to even go out for interviews". "But ma'am she's in your womb". That's right and she's as much a citizen as you or I so show me how to fill out these forms.....
Even a batshit conservative court would have trouble telling women they don't get bodily autonomy because that opens a whole can of worms about organ donation, castle doctrine, self-defense, etc.---all things Republicans would be hard-pressed to give up even for abortion.
You underestimate "conservative" willingness to "forget" that women are in fact people.
There was a fantastic thread on Twitter a year or two ago, which correctly pointed out that every unwanted pregnancy could ultimately be tracked down to a man not wanting to wear a condom, because a few seconds of even more pleasure for the man is more important than nine months / eighteen years of potential fallout for the woman.
So when, say, older Catholic women know they can no longer carry a baby to term and still insist on having unprotected sex that ends in a miscarriage. Is she guilty of negligent homicide?
Speaking of chickens, there is a difference between a chicken and an egg. Anyone who doesn't believe me should try baking a cake using chickens instead of eggs.
That's why there are two different words for them.
It was fucking abhorrent, using her (basically dead) body as an incubator, just awful.
Depending on exactly how this bill and "all the rights, privileges, and immunities" are worded a pregnant woman might get to vote twice since she's two citizens. Babies don't have an age at birth. They're zero years old. Until birth, then, the fetus is part of the woman and should be considered the same age.
They blow off details like that without noticing them because they aren't scholars, they aren't rational-- that is typical elitist Harvard University bullshit. I mean-- you know how little they'd mind those arguments. Even in the Supreme Court-- good luck with it.
I recall reading about a month ago a similar bill, conferring all rights and privileges etc but then launching into paragraph upon paragraph of exceptions to those rights because the whole fucking thing is stupid and they knew it.
Abortion is murder. You cant deny science. You are killing a living being
My point precisely. They'd be all over this, AND it would REALLY piss off Missouri. (Well, the shitty parts of Missouri, anyway.)