Reversing Roe

[l***@fl.it]

Watched this on Netflix, a very interesting look from the 1950s on.

[HRM Resident]

Post by l***@fl.it
Watched this on Netflix, a very interesting look from the 1950s on.

I don't get Netflix, but I can surmise from the content from the
title. Abortion. Probably a 1950s perspective?

Either way, I don't think it will be reversed in the US. The
buffoon in Washington is stacking their Supreme Court with
quasi-religious right nut-bars, but that's a long settled issue. There
is some fear among the nervous Nellies on the left that it will get
reversed, but 60-70% of the population support it as it is, so I highly
doubt that it will go anywhere.

I actually oppose abortion personally (except for the standard
rape, incestuous conceptions, etc reasons), but I 100% support the will
of the majority and women's rights. Democracy has spoken world wide on
the issue, at least in Western countries.

Why do I oppose it? Certainly not for religious reasons. I
personally would want my daughters to carry their children to term,
regardless. Abortion isn't a form of birth control and shouldn't be
used to "fix" stupid mistakes or to relieve economic hardship. We have
numerous effective forms of birth control, and it's taught in the
schools from the early grades onward. If you are stupid enough to get
pregnant, they having a baby is one of the consequences. I never got
anyone pregnant unless it was planned, nor did any of my children.
Elder aunts and such made a couple of mistakes and they carried the
child to term. They either kept it or gave it up for adoption. The
reason I don't believe in it is the same reason I'm not an atheist. "I
don't know." As in I don't know when life begins. I don't think
science has answered that yet . . .at least to my satisfaction. It's a
subjective guess. Some say at conception, others say at the moment of
birth, and most say various times between the two. I don't know, and
I'm not encouraging anyone to kill another human life until I do know
when life begins. For this reason, I don't think it's right.

HOWEVER, as I said initially, I support a woman's right to control
her own body, and I support the will of the majority in the West. You
don't have to agree with every idea to accept that is what the majority
want. Who am I to impose my beliefs (or lack thereof) on anyone else?
Therein lies the problem. People who have strong beliefs seemed
determined to impose them on others, regardless of whether or not they
are on the fringe.

It's too bad our leaders couldn't think this way . . . you get a
gun-loving hunter/target shooter as leader and they'll try to impose
"everyone should have the right to carry a gun" laws, even though the
majority may want gun control. You get a religious nut in charge, and
they'll try to impose the teaching of their choice on everyone. GOOD
politicians (if such a beast exists), do what the majority want.

[observer]

Post by l***@fl.it
Watched this on Netflix, a very interesting look from the 1950s on.

    I don't get Netflix, but I can surmise from the content from
the title.  Abortion.  Probably a 1950s perspective?
    Either way, I don't think it will be reversed in the US.
The buffoon in Washington is stacking their Supreme Court with
quasi-religious right nut-bars, but that's a long settled issue.
There is some fear among the nervous Nellies on the left that it
will get reversed, but 60-70% of the population support it as it
is, so I highly doubt that it will go anywhere.
    I actually oppose abortion personally (except for the
standard rape, incestuous conceptions, etc reasons), but I 100%
support the will of the majority and women's rights.  Democracy
has spoken world wide on the issue, at least in Western countries.
    Why do I oppose it?  Certainly not for religious reasons.  I
personally would want my daughters to carry their children to
term, regardless.  Abortion isn't a form of birth control and
shouldn't be used to "fix" stupid mistakes or to relieve economic
hardship.  We have numerous effective forms of birth control, and
it's taught in the schools from the early grades onward.  If you
are stupid enough to get pregnant, they having a baby is one of
the consequences.  I never got anyone pregnant unless it was
planned, nor did any of my children. Elder aunts and such made a
couple of mistakes and they carried the child to term.  They
either kept it or gave it up for adoption.  The reason I don't
believe in it is the same reason I'm not an atheist.  "I don't
know."  As in I don't know when life begins.  I don't think
science has answered that yet . . .at least to my satisfaction.
It's a subjective guess.  Some say at conception, others say at
the moment of birth, and most say various times between the two.
I don't know, and I'm not encouraging anyone to kill another
human life until I do know when life begins.  For this reason, I
don't think it's right.
    HOWEVER, as I said initially, I support a woman's right to
control her own body, and I support the will of the majority in
the West.  You don't have to agree with every idea to accept that
is what the majority want.  Who am I to impose my beliefs (or
lack thereof) on anyone else? Therein lies the problem.  People
who have strong beliefs seemed determined to impose them on
others, regardless of whether or not they are on the fringe.
    It's too bad our leaders couldn't think this way . . . you
get a gun-loving hunter/target shooter as leader and they'll try
to impose "everyone should have the right to carry a gun" laws,
even though the majority may want gun control.  You get a
religious nut in charge, and they'll try to impose the teaching
of their choice on everyone.  GOOD politicians (if such a beast
exists), do what the majority want.

Absolutely, I agree with you 99%. The only difference is that I
oppose abortion on religious grounds. I would not, however,
attempt to impose that opposition on others.

[HRM Resident]

Post by l***@fl.it
Watched this on Netflix, a very interesting look from the 1950s on.

     I don't get Netflix, but I can surmise from the content from the
title.  Abortion.  Probably a 1950s perspective?
     Either way, I don't think it will be reversed in the US. The
buffoon in Washington is stacking their Supreme Court with
quasi-religious right nut-bars, but that's a long settled issue. There
is some fear among the nervous Nellies on the left that it will get
reversed, but 60-70% of the population support it as it is, so I
highly doubt that it will go anywhere.
     I actually oppose abortion personally (except for the standard
rape, incestuous conceptions, etc reasons), but I 100% support the
will of the majority and women's rights.  Democracy has spoken world
wide on the issue, at least in Western countries.
     Why do I oppose it?  Certainly not for religious reasons.  I
personally would want my daughters to carry their children to term,
regardless.  Abortion isn't a form of birth control and shouldn't be
used to "fix" stupid mistakes or to relieve economic hardship.  We
have numerous effective forms of birth control, and it's taught in the
schools from the early grades onward.  If you are stupid enough to get
pregnant, they having a baby is one of the consequences.  I never got
anyone pregnant unless it was planned, nor did any of my children.
Elder aunts and such made a couple of mistakes and they carried the
child to term.  They either kept it or gave it up for adoption.  The
reason I don't believe in it is the same reason I'm not an atheist.
"I don't know."  As in I don't know when life begins.  I don't think
science has answered that yet . . .at least to my satisfaction. It's a
subjective guess.  Some say at conception, others say at the moment of
birth, and most say various times between the two. I don't know, and
I'm not encouraging anyone to kill another human life until I do know
when life begins.  For this reason, I don't think it's right.
     HOWEVER, as I said initially, I support a woman's right to
control her own body, and I support the will of the majority in the
West.  You don't have to agree with every idea to accept that is what
the majority want.  Who am I to impose my beliefs (or lack thereof) on
anyone else? Therein lies the problem.  People who have strong beliefs
seemed determined to impose them on others, regardless of whether or
not they are on the fringe.
     It's too bad our leaders couldn't think this way . . . you get a
gun-loving hunter/target shooter as leader and they'll try to impose
"everyone should have the right to carry a gun" laws, even though the
majority may want gun control.  You get a religious nut in charge, and
they'll try to impose the teaching of their choice on everyone.  GOOD
politicians (if such a beast exists), do what the majority want.

Absolutely, I agree with you 99%.  The only difference is that I oppose
abortion on religious grounds.  I would not, however, attempt to impose
that opposition on others.

Well, I am an agnostic. We are surrounded by atheists, some who
demand we must adopt atheism or be mocked. I can't agree with your
religious beliefs, whatever brand you believe in, for I've seen too much
damage done by organized religions. Yet I support your right to believe
whatever you want.

In a way, I see those who are atheists belonging to a "religion' in
a way. They are convinced they are 100% right that there is absolutely
nothing . . . without evidence, for one can't prove a negative. It's
philosophically and mathematically impossible to prove a negative. In
my view, atheism is a faith based belief that there is nothing . . . and
a faith based belief is a "religion." It's ironic that those who belong
to the religion called atheism attack those who belong to other
religions. But that's one of the reasons I won't tolerate *any*
religion, because they have been fighting against each other since
humanity appeared on this planet trying to convince others that their
way is the right way.

I much prefer to believe in simply "I don't know." And I really
don't know. Neither does anyone else.

[l***@fl.it]

Post by HRM Resident

Post by l***@fl.it
Watched this on Netflix, a very interesting look from the 1950s on.

I don't get Netflix, but I can surmise from the content from the
title. Abortion. Probably a 1950s perspective?

It tracked the abortion 'issue' from when it first really came up in
the 50s when forward thinking women wanted more legal methods than
coat hangers.

Post by HRM Resident
Either way, I don't think it will be reversed in the US. The
buffoon in Washington is stacking their Supreme Court with
quasi-religious right nut-bars, but that's a long settled issue. There
is some fear among the nervous Nellies on the left that it will get
reversed, but 60-70% of the population support it as it is, so I highly
doubt that it will go anywhere.

It dealt with that issue and how close it comes, as it did when Regan
appointed a very pro life woman. In the end, when it went to the
supreme court, she did not vote as expected, so it survived.

Post by HRM Resident
I actually oppose abortion personally (except for the standard
rape, incestuous conceptions, etc reasons), but I 100% support the will
of the majority and women's rights. Democracy has spoken world wide on
the issue, at least in Western countries.

I would hate to see a return to back street abortions, and that is
what would happen, already is happening in the very southern US where
98% of the clinics have closed due to a law brought in that they must
have full ORs in order to offer the service. A lot of poverty there
and because they can't afford to travel north, it's backstreet
abortions.

Post by HRM Resident
Why do I oppose it? Certainly not for religious reasons. I
personally would want my daughters to carry their children to term,
regardless. Abortion isn't a form of birth control and shouldn't be
used to "fix" stupid mistakes or to relieve economic hardship. We have
numerous effective forms of birth control, and it's taught in the
schools from the early grades onward.

Again money comes into the equation. Also there have not been many
new ideas since the Pill and there are many women who cannot take it.
Yes, the man could have a vasectomy, but that's rare.

If you are stupid enough to get

Post by HRM Resident
pregnant, they having a baby is one of the consequences. I never got
anyone pregnant unless it was planned, nor did any of my children.
Elder aunts and such made a couple of mistakes and they carried the
child to term. They either kept it or gave it up for adoption. The
reason I don't believe in it is the same reason I'm not an atheist. "I
don't know." As in I don't know when life begins. I don't think
science has answered that yet . . .at least to my satisfaction. It's a
subjective guess. Some say at conception, others say at the moment of
birth, and most say various times between the two. I don't know, and
I'm not encouraging anyone to kill another human life until I do know
when life begins. For this reason, I don't think it's right.

While I am certain I would never have had one, I can understand
desperation. Just after we decided to stay here I thought I was
pregnant (even though on the Pill) and drank about a bottle of gin and
had a steaming hot bath, in the event I wasn't pregnant but I was
hellishly hung over :)

Post by HRM Resident
HOWEVER, as I said initially, I support a woman's right to control
her own body, and I support the will of the majority in the West. You
don't have to agree with every idea to accept that is what the majority
want. Who am I to impose my beliefs (or lack thereof) on anyone else?
Therein lies the problem. People who have strong beliefs seemed
determined to impose them on others, regardless of whether or not they
are on the fringe.

Currently in the US they are starting to win, my generation who knew
the coat hanger days are dying off and the young don't see the danger.
I heard Andrew Scheer say he thinks the issue should be brought up and
that an actual law should be passed, and we know what he will be
thinking, better we stay as we are, accepting but without an actual
law.

Post by HRM Resident
It's too bad our leaders couldn't think this way . . . you get a
gun-loving hunter/target shooter as leader and they'll try to impose
"everyone should have the right to carry a gun" laws, even though the
majority may want gun control. You get a religious nut in charge, and
they'll try to impose the teaching of their choice on everyone. GOOD
politicians (if such a beast exists), do what the majority want.

I think it is for the one most affected, the woman, to have the final
say and if she decides abortion she should have the right to have a
proper clinical abortion, not some ghastly back street deal and likely
die of sepsis as used to happen frequently.

[HRM Resident]

Post by l***@fl.it

Post by HRM Resident

Post by l***@fl.it
Watched this on Netflix, a very interesting look from the 1950s on.

I don't get Netflix, but I can surmise from the content from the
title. Abortion. Probably a 1950s perspective?

It tracked the abortion 'issue' from when it first really came up in
the 50s when forward thinking women wanted more legal methods than
coat hangers.

Post by HRM Resident
Either way, I don't think it will be reversed in the US. The
buffoon in Washington is stacking their Supreme Court with
quasi-religious right nut-bars, but that's a long settled issue. There
is some fear among the nervous Nellies on the left that it will get
reversed, but 60-70% of the population support it as it is, so I highly
doubt that it will go anywhere.

It dealt with that issue and how close it comes, as it did when Regan
appointed a very pro life woman. In the end, when it went to the
supreme court, she did not vote as expected, so it survived.

Post by HRM Resident
I actually oppose abortion personally (except for the standard
rape, incestuous conceptions, etc reasons), but I 100% support the will
of the majority and women's rights. Democracy has spoken world wide on
the issue, at least in Western countries.

I would hate to see a return to back street abortions, and that is
what would happen, already is happening in the very southern US where
98% of the clinics have closed due to a law brought in that they must
have full ORs in order to offer the service. A lot of poverty there
and because they can't afford to travel north, it's backstreet
abortions.

Post by HRM Resident
Why do I oppose it? Certainly not for religious reasons. I
personally would want my daughters to carry their children to term,
regardless. Abortion isn't a form of birth control and shouldn't be
used to "fix" stupid mistakes or to relieve economic hardship. We have
numerous effective forms of birth control, and it's taught in the
schools from the early grades onward.

Again money comes into the equation. Also there have not been many
new ideas since the Pill and there are many women who cannot take it.
Yes, the man could have a vasectomy, but that's rare.
If you are stupid enough to get

Post by HRM Resident
pregnant, they having a baby is one of the consequences. I never got
anyone pregnant unless it was planned, nor did any of my children.
Elder aunts and such made a couple of mistakes and they carried the
child to term. They either kept it or gave it up for adoption. The
reason I don't believe in it is the same reason I'm not an atheist. "I
don't know." As in I don't know when life begins. I don't think
science has answered that yet . . .at least to my satisfaction. It's a
subjective guess. Some say at conception, others say at the moment of
birth, and most say various times between the two. I don't know, and
I'm not encouraging anyone to kill another human life until I do know
when life begins. For this reason, I don't think it's right.

While I am certain I would never have had one, I can understand
desperation. Just after we decided to stay here I thought I was
pregnant (even though on the Pill) and drank about a bottle of gin and
had a steaming hot bath, in the event I wasn't pregnant but I was
hellishly hung over :)

Post by HRM Resident
HOWEVER, as I said initially, I support a woman's right to control
her own body, and I support the will of the majority in the West. You
don't have to agree with every idea to accept that is what the majority
want. Who am I to impose my beliefs (or lack thereof) on anyone else?
Therein lies the problem. People who have strong beliefs seemed
determined to impose them on others, regardless of whether or not they
are on the fringe.

Currently in the US they are starting to win, my generation who knew
the coat hanger days are dying off and the young don't see the danger.
I heard Andrew Scheer say he thinks the issue should be brought up and
that an actual law should be passed, and we know what he will be
thinking, better we stay as we are, accepting but without an actual
law.

Post by HRM Resident
It's too bad our leaders couldn't think this way . . . you get a
gun-loving hunter/target shooter as leader and they'll try to impose
"everyone should have the right to carry a gun" laws, even though the
majority may want gun control. You get a religious nut in charge, and
they'll try to impose the teaching of their choice on everyone. GOOD
politicians (if such a beast exists), do what the majority want.

I think it is for the one most affected, the woman, to have the final
say and if she decides abortion she should have the right to have a
proper clinical abortion, not some ghastly back street deal and likely
die of sepsis as used to happen frequently.

You raise some good points. Arguments that were used many decades
ago to arrive at the legal status we have today vis-à-vis abortion in
the West. It's a settled issue and I don't think there is any fear that
it will get reversed, at least in Canada. We can't control the
religious fanatics in the bible belt of a foreign country.

You do say, "I am certain I would never have had one", and while
I'm picking that statement possibly out of its full context, we agree.
We agree that abortion is not for us, and that's all I said. I wouldn't
encourage anyone who asked my advice to have one, and I would go further
and try to dissuade a family member from having one for the reason I
said: I don't know when human life begins, and since I don't know, I err
on the side of caution as opposed to taking a human life. The laws, and
the majority of people in the West feel otherwise, so I will respect
their views and not oppose it for them. I have no right to impose my
belief system on others.

Regarding Albert Speer thinking the issue ought to be raised again,
that's good news that I had not heard. I have always felt he's just a
place holder until the Conservative party fount a sensible leader for
2024 and onward. Any fears you might have had that he'd somehow become
PM in 2019 were quashed by Maxime Bernier's recent split with the party,
destroying/splitting their Quebec wing. It's essentially what Preston
Manning did in the 1990s and it took a long, long time for them to
recover. Even if that had not happened, talking about revisiting the
abortion issue in Canada is political rat poison. We don't have to
worry about that happening in Canada. We just legalized marijuana, for
cripes sake! This is not 1937 USA, and we are not in danger of being
taken over by fanatics.

[l***@fl.it]

Post by HRM Resident
You raise some good points. Arguments that were used many decades
ago to arrive at the legal status we have today vis-à-vis abortion in
the West. It's a settled issue and I don't think there is any fear that
it will get reversed, at least in Canada. We can't control the
religious fanatics in the bible belt of a foreign country.

I am not so sure about us - PEI is very smug about no abortions there,
never mind their women have the burden of applying to NB or NS for
same, and do.

Post by HRM Resident
You do say, "I am certain I would never have had one", and while
I'm picking that statement possibly out of its full context, we agree.
We agree that abortion is not for us, and that's all I said. I wouldn't
encourage anyone who asked my advice to have one, and I would go further
and try to dissuade a family member from having one for the reason I
said: I don't know when human life begins, and since I don't know, I err
on the side of caution as opposed to taking a human life. The laws, and
the majority of people in the West feel otherwise, so I will respect
their views and not oppose it for them. I have no right to impose my
belief system on others.

I suppose because my kids were all conceived pre Pill (I have often
said to my son, he's the youngest, you and the pill came out in 1962)
I was more fatalistic.

Post by HRM Resident
Regarding Albert Speer thinking the issue ought to be raised again,
that's good news that I had not heard. I have always felt he's just a
place holder until the Conservative party fount a sensible leader for
2024 and onward. Any fears you might have had that he'd somehow become
PM in 2019 were quashed by Maxime Bernier's recent split with the party,
destroying/splitting their Quebec wing.

I saw Bernier announcing his new party but he didn't go on to say what
it would have as its manifest. Though he did say it would not be
anti-immigration all white etc. which says to me, that's exactly what
he wants.

It's essentially what Preston

Post by HRM Resident
Manning did in the 1990s and it took a long, long time for them to
recover. Even if that had not happened, talking about revisiting the
abortion issue in Canada is political rat poison. We don't have to
worry about that happening in Canada. We just legalized marijuana, for
cripes sake! This is not 1937 USA, and we are not in danger of being
taken over by fanatics.

Come on HRM - don't do an ostrich trick - it's definitely what some
will push for Scheer! Remember, it only really affects women, 51% of
the population.

[HRM Resident]

Post by l***@fl.it

Post by HRM Resident
You raise some good points. Arguments that were used many decades
ago to arrive at the legal status we have today vis-à-vis abortion in
the West. It's a settled issue and I don't think there is any fear that
it will get reversed, at least in Canada. We can't control the
religious fanatics in the bible belt of a foreign country.

I am not so sure about us - PEI is very smug about no abortions there,
never mind their women have the burden of applying to NB or NS for
same, and do.

I did hear some years ago that women from PEI were traveling to NS
for abortions. I forget the details, but I think it was easier to get
done here than there. Don't know why.

Post by l***@fl.it

Post by HRM Resident
You do say, "I am certain I would never have had one", and while
I'm picking that statement possibly out of its full context, we agree.
We agree that abortion is not for us, and that's all I said. I wouldn't
encourage anyone who asked my advice to have one, and I would go further
and try to dissuade a family member from having one for the reason I
said: I don't know when human life begins, and since I don't know, I err
on the side of caution as opposed to taking a human life. The laws, and
the majority of people in the West feel otherwise, so I will respect
their views and not oppose it for them. I have no right to impose my
belief system on others.

I suppose because my kids were all conceived pre Pill (I have often
said to my son, he's the youngest, you and the pill came out in 1962)
I was more fatalistic.

Post by HRM Resident
Regarding Albert Speer thinking the issue ought to be raised again,
that's good news that I had not heard. I have always felt he's just a
place holder until the Conservative party fount a sensible leader for
2024 and onward. Any fears you might have had that he'd somehow become
PM in 2019 were quashed by Maxime Bernier's recent split with the party,
destroying/splitting their Quebec wing.

I saw Bernier announcing his new party but he didn't go on to say what
it would have as its manifest. Though he did say it would not be
anti-immigration all white etc. which says to me, that's exactly what
he wants.

Probably. I think the "populist" fade has peaked and that sort of
thinking will fade. I'm sure he thinks he can tap into it. Maybe it's
a good thing as it will split the extremists off the Conservative party
and isolate them from any chance of having a say in government. I can't
see Maxime Bernier ever becoming a significant political force outside
of Quebec.

Post by l***@fl.it
It's essentially what Preston

Post by HRM Resident
Manning did in the 1990s and it took a long, long time for them to
recover. Even if that had not happened, talking about revisiting the
abortion issue in Canada is political rat poison. We don't have to
worry about that happening in Canada. We just legalized marijuana, for
cripes sake! This is not 1937 USA, and we are not in danger of being
taken over by fanatics.

Come on HRM - don't do an ostrich trick - it's definitely what some
will push for Scheer! Remember, it only really affects women, 51% of
the population.

Some will, but if he doesn't have most of the women and a
significant portion of the men, he'll be unsuccessful. As I keep
saying, he's a place holder until 2024. I don't think he's electable,
but I felt the same way about Stephen Harper and Doug Ford, so what do I
know?

[observer]

Post by l***@fl.it
Come on HRM - don't do an ostrich trick - it's definitely what some
will push for Scheer!   Remember, it only really affects women,
51% of
the population.

    Some will, but if he doesn't have most of the women and a
significant portion of the men, he'll be unsuccessful.  As I keep
saying, he's a place holder until 2024.  I don't think he's
electable, but I felt the same way about Stephen Harper and Doug
Ford, so what do I know?

Bernier has very little political influence in Quebec and none
outside of it. Unlike Manning, who successfully split the
Conservative vote, he will have negligible effect on any federal
election. In fact, I strongly suspect that, even if he does
manage to field a slate of candidates in the 2019 election, he
will not have party status afterward.

[NLR]

Post by observer

Post by l***@fl.it
Come on HRM - don't do an ostrich trick - it's definitely what some
will push for Scheer!   Remember, it only really affects women,
51% of
the population.

    Some will, but if he doesn't have most of the women and a
significant portion of the men, he'll be unsuccessful.  As I keep
saying, he's a place holder until 2024.  I don't think he's
electable, but I felt the same way about Stephen Harper and Doug
Ford, so what do I know?

Bernier has very little political influence in Quebec and none
outside of it. Unlike Manning, who successfully split the
Conservative vote, he will have negligible effect on any federal
election. In fact, I strongly suspect that, even if he does
manage to field a slate of candidates in the 2019 election, he
will not have party status afterward.

Nice job impersonating me. Care to confirm what year Jack and I returned
from Europe and from which country?

Carter

[Jack]

Post by NLR

Post by observer

Post by l***@fl.it
Come on HRM - don't do an ostrich trick - it's definitely what some
will push for Scheer!   Remember, it only really affects women,
51% of
the population.

    Some will, but if he doesn't have most of the women and a
significant portion of the men, he'll be unsuccessful.  As I keep
saying, he's a place holder until 2024.  I don't think he's
electable, but I felt the same way about Stephen Harper and Doug
Ford, so what do I know?

Bernier has very little political influence in Quebec and none
outside of it. Unlike Manning, who successfully split the
Conservative vote, he will have negligible effect on any federal
election. In fact, I strongly suspect that, even if he does
manage to field a slate of candidates in the 2019 election, he
will not have party status afterward.

Nice job impersonating me. Care to confirm what year Jack and I returned
from Europe and from which country?
Carter

We was gay male prostitutes in Amsterdam red light district!!?? In 1995-
96 an then we got returned to the CF in Canada when we got caught!!!
OK??