Perhaps you should look into the different treatment of men trying to get a vasectomy vs women trying to get tubal ligation, as one example.

@JacksonNought

Okay, I'll bite. What laws are you referring to that delegalize tubal ligation?

Or are you referring to the fact that some places have policies against "same-day" tubal ligations because they aren't as easily reversible as vasectomies, and they don't want to be sued later by a patient claiming she wasn't properly informed of the risks and ramifications? Or do you consider them covering their asses legally to be patriarchy, even if the surgeon is female?

And please tell me, what are the other examples you speak of? We might as well have some sort of conversation since you saw fit to ignore my comment about women having no qualms about dictating what men should do.

Thank you for being one of the more reasonable people on here, actually giving some thought to your comment and not just mudslinging or literally telling me to kill myself.

I'll start off by saying Sarah is a popular online comedian, and also a woman - something neither you and I are, nor are any other commenters in this thread. As not-women, we probably don't have quite the same experience or first-hand knowledge of what it is like, not to the same degree that we would know what it is like to be gun owners.

I do agree with your comment to an extent. The one main difference, though, is that the 2A is just that - an Amendment in the Bill Of Rights. It would take a 2/3rds vote to make any changes to the Amendment, which will never happen with the extremely partisan make-up of our Congress. This is not the same as Roe v Wade, which was a SCOTUS ruling that has set precedent. The current makeup of the SCOTUS is 6-3 Conservative, and 7-2 Catholic, with several outspoken anti-abortionists. The continued abortion restriction legislation in states has finally achieved its goal - get the SCOTUS to finally hear one of these cases, and get the chance to have them make a new ruling and strike down RvW. Hopefully you are right, and they would never strike it down, but it is much easier to do so and currently on the table right - something that isn't remotely happening with the 2A.

There is no such thing as "unborn". What you are referring to is a clump of cells.

@JacksonNought Then yourself are nothing more than a clump of cells.

@GaryWitt pretty true, but a clump with cognizance and deductive reasoning, and with the ability to be alive without being a parasite to someone else's body. Go ahead and remove the zygotes / fetuses / whatever, and let them survive on their own outside of the mother's body.

@JacksonNought An argument for eugenics. Good luck with that moral high ground position.

@GaryWitt good luck trying to compare clumps of cells with fully autonomous human beings. I guess you must be a vegan?

@JacksonNought You are a bag of shit in my opinion, and you must sink!

@JacksonNought, It’s clear you haven’t quite thought this through. The question is, at what point does a “clump of cells” become that “fully autonomous being” that deserves not to be aborted. Even a baby is dependent upon others for its continued existence, so it is not much more than a parasite, even after birth. In fact, that dependence only gradually disappears. As for “cognizance and deductive reasoning,” they rarely reside in an infant, and there are adults who lack those attributes. Would you abort them as well? (This is where eugenics shows up prominently in your position.)

The fact is, any line you draw between “abortable” and “worthy of life” is going to be arbitrary. Or based on your own personal preference, which here appears to be the same thing.

Moreover, by focusing exclusively on the “rights of the mother,” you also ignore the rights of the father, and the responsibility of both of them to do right by the potential life they have created together.

You know you could just use a neutral "they" if you didn't want to assume a gender and potentially cause offense... even though I doubt she is on this site or would ever see it. Your use just comes off as mocking... which I assume is your goal.

The point is the continued degradation of abortion rights, as seen just this week in Texas, as well as an upcoming Supreme Court case which could overturn Roe v Wade (yet I am sure Conservatives would not complain about "legislating from the bench" if that happened). Women's bodies are regulated continuously, yet even a thought of regulating guns is seen as the height of blasphemy.

And these same men (yes, men) who sign laws to regulate women's bodies, while at the same time putting all of their effort in making sure guns are as free as possible, will turn around and tell women to smile more.

@JacksonNought Life isn’t a woman’s privilege to decide, the rights of the unborn will be protected by real men and woman. Democrats always default to the lowest standard they can create.
It’s not a woman’s right! It’s the rights of the community, it’s the rights of the unborn, its the rights of moral and ethical humans.
Are you into selling body parts as well? Soon you’ll be saying the baby parts of the aborted are the possessions of the mother! Do you approve of selling off the aborted child’s body parts? Where do you “people” find your ethics?
You are the axis of evil!

@JacksonNought
I admit to being confused by the left's gender pronoun system and don't mean to offend.

Abortion is a medical process that is being abused as a birth control method to alleviate unwanted pregnancies where preventative measures should have been applied beforehand instead. Many believe that human life is sacred. Some believe that ONLY some human life is sacred

@Rick-A again, no such thing as the "unborn". Clumps of cells do not have rights. Going back to a previous post I made, does that mean you can start getting government subsidies, tax breaks, life insurance, etc upon conception? It's funny that a group so concerned about protecting clumps of cells don't actually care about the children once they are actually alive and sentient (just look at the anti-vaxx crowd).

You do realize Republicans get abortions too... right? Just look at all of those Republican "family values" officials who were caught forcing mistresses to get abortions.

Yes, I do think funding stem cell research with aborted cells is perfectly fine.

@JacksonNought “clumps of cells” do have recognition in law and implied rights at the very least as a human being. When a pregnant woman is killed the one who caused the death is usually charged with two counts, one for the woman and one for the unborn “clump of cells”...

@BubbaLouie well first you need to examine how the rabid pro-life crowd acts towards children who have been born. The same people trying to restrict abortion rights will then try and destroy government assistance programs which allow kids a place to live and food to eat and an education. You also have these same people cutting funding for pre-natal vitamins and other health programs meant to protect children. These people would also rather children remain in a broken foster care system, rife with abuse, instead of being adopted by a loving same-sex couple or single parent. And, as this Tweet alludes to, these people want absolutely no action to be taken regarding children being murdered in our schools and streets, shrugging it off as a small price to pay for unrestricted gun access.

And then we should look at how these same people take active measures against scientifically-proven methods to end unwanted pregnancies and abortions. For example, most rabid pro-lifers in the US are fundamentalist Christians, who then turn around and say the only sexual education should be abstinence only, which has been proven not to work (Bristol Palin anyone?). Several states in the US have no regulations around sexual education, meaning children can literally be taught lies like condoms cause cancer. One-third of federal tax-payer funding for public school sex-ed funding goes to abstinence-only programs. And don't forget about corporations, which receive federal subsidies and tax-breaks at the expense of ordinary tax-payers like myself, being granted exemptions from covering birth control insurance.

With all of their actions, these people do not actually care about children, they just want to control women's bodies and punish them.

@parsifal ok so we can put clumps of cells on life insurance plans then? A miscarriage can be paid-out? Based on the recent IRS tax credit announcement, parents can sign up to receive $300 a month right after conception - so $2700 before the child is even born?

[home.treasury.gov]

@JacksonNought Idiot supreme!

@JacksonNought Why don't you call an insurance agent and ask?