One is about a decision that affects only the person involved. The other affects everyone around that person, but not the person him/herself. Its an outward vs inward thing.
Can I make a joke about FF's dick here without being a hypocrite on trans rights? Never mind, FF's dick makes its own jokes.
Wrong, there are two lives involved. This is still about bodily autonomy. The distinction you're making is meaningless. Either people have a right to bodily autonomy or they don't. Either rights are unlimited or they are subject to reasonable regulations. Most people agree that you can't yell fire in a crowded theater. That is a reasonable restriction on speech, but when it comes to abortion, you believe there should be no restrictions. Often people cite bodily autonomy as to why there should be no restrictions yet a mask mandate or vaccine mandate violates bodily autonomy as well. There seems to be a double standard here, but that's not surprising.
If you’re saying the father should be involved in decisions regarding abortion, I agree. Unfortunately, most men don’t.
Yes, rights are subject to reasonable restrictions. No one is saying abortion should have no restrictions; they're saying the restrictions many states are adopting are not reasonable. There are plenty of restrictions on abortion in states where it's still legal, and most people think those restrictions are reasonable. If it's a case of "I'm pregnant and I don't want to be," it has to be performed fairly early, while the fetus is closer to being a lump of cells than a baby. After a certain point, abortion can only be performed if it's a case of "either we abort the pregnancy, or both the baby and the mother will die." If that's not restrictive enough, where is the line where preventing pregnancy goes from okay to not okay?
Are you accusing me of trying to inject nuance into the conversation? I did nothing of the sort! I was presented with the binary choice of "no restrictions or reasonable restrictions," and I redirected it to "reasonable restrictions or unreasonable restrictions" because "no restrictions" isn't an actual choice; there are always restrictions.
The way it’s been framed, especially by @Bailey is that any restrictions on abortion means I’m an asshole who wants to legislate my neighbors bodily autonomy. Never mind the fact that this happens in other aspects of life that doesn’t involve abortion. Therefore I conclude that people like @Bailey think that there should not be any restrictions at all. Which is why I made the post above. If I’m wrong in my conclusion then he’s free to correct me and he can quit tagging me with his ridiculous comments.
I love how conservative men think there's anything that can possibly happen to them that's equal to being made to shit out an incestual rape baby by theocratic maniacs.
Tell us you haven't gotten laid in years without saying you haven't gotten laid in years. Definitely easy to avoid that instinctual activity when you don't have a partner...
Even should he cite one it's not analogous - the vax is only secondarily FOR him, it's primary purpose is to protect the vulnerable people in the population who CAN'T be vaccinated. Same reason, in it's own way, that we have traffic laws. It's one thing to act a fool and kill or maim yourself, but you have no right to risk doing so to others by your behavior.
I'll happily stop tagging you when you clarify that your opinions on whether or not your neighbour should have an abortion isn't relevant to whether of not she should be able to have an abortion.
Explain to me how a woman can choose abstinence while being raped - most likely by her boyfriend, exboyfriend, husband, or exhusband? Can't? Then maybe you need to sit down and shut the fuck up.
You say these things as if men didn't exist. Women, like men, do enjoy having sex. When it's reciprocated and respect on each side, people STILL get pregnant. Even if everything or nothing in the life is perfect. It's going to happen. So, why punish a woman, but not a man?
ND court kills ban. https://www.reuters.com/world/us/no...ll-not-revive-states-abortion-ban-2023-03-16/
Because whores need to keep their legs closed. This discussion always ends up there eventually. The only question is how many posts it will take.
WY bans abortion medications. https://pluribusnews.com/news-and-events/wyoming-first-state-to-ban-abortion-inducing-medication/