Poll of the Day > woman have lost control of their own body, roe v wade is overturned

(+) Yeah! (+)

ZangsBeard posted...

parasite
/perst/
noun
1. 1.
2. an organism that lives in or on an organism of another species (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the other's expense.

Considering its apt

i'm aware of the similarities, it just feels gross in a serious context for me i guess. meh.

darkknight109 posted...

Because in order for the Democrats to codify access to abortion they would need:
1) The presidency
2) A majority in the House
3) At least 60 votes in the Senate
4) None of the anti-abortion Democrats to break ranks and vote against it (and there have always been anti-abortion Democrats - even now, when pro-choice sentiment is the highest it's ever been in the US, there are still pro-life elected Democrat officials in congress who almost certainly would not vote to codify abortion protections into law).
5) A Supreme Court that wouldn't immediately find a reason to strike down the law as unconstitutional

They've never had all of those at the same time. Even in the Obama era, which is the only time in the last 40 years that they've had a supermajority in the senate, it is very unlikely they would have been able to muster the 60 votes necessary to overcome an almost certain Republican filibuster.

They don't need 60 in the Senate. Just 50 that are willing to nuke the filibuster over it.
Until recently, they did not want to risk ending the filibuster. Then in Trump's term, McConnell had no problem casting it aside to pass whatever the fuck they wanted and now all pretenses of playing nice are gone.
Also, until this Friday, it was settled law, so doing anything extreme over something already existing seemed like a waste of political capital.
Now that it's not settled law and the filibuster has been dragged out behind the wood shed and shot in the head by Mitch, they just need the 50 pro-choice Dems willing to do it. Which they absolutely could get this fall if the economy turns around and they ride this issue hard.

The SC striking down the law, though....? That's a bigger problem. If Dems do get a larger Senate majority, they need to add DC and maybe PR as states, pass voting rights protections, and try to expand the SC in a way that wouldn't let Republicans just one-up later (I saw one suggestion to have 1 justice per court district...).

On a voter-level, the single best thing that can be done is for Dems in the most populous states like CA and NY to try and move to purple states like Pennsylvania, Georgia, North Carolina, Arizona... to firmly put them into the blue column. Dems have the popular vote nationwide. It's just distributed poorly...

if the economy turns around

lol

DirtBasedSoap posted...

if the economy turns around

lol

well, if it doesn't, the Dems are fucked

The Fed is causing all of this. They kept rates near zero way too fucking long, printed shit loads of money in 2020, and now are going into hyper-drive on raising rates up b/c they realized they fucked up (or now that it's a Dem in office, they're intentionally sabotaging) and are trying to make up for lost time.
Biden should've been demanding gradual rate hikes while president elect, or at least once he was in office. We could've been into the recovery phase by now. Instead, the Fed is engineering a recession to fight the inflation (that they caused, by printing so damn much money) during an election year.
I'm really frustrated w/ Biden's lack of urgency. I guess he hoped like all the presidents before him that he could ride things out and pass the bag off to the next schmuck. Would've been way better off ripping the band-aid off early and starting his term w/ a recession. It was inevitable after all the shit Trump (tax cuts) and the Fed (see above) did, just a question of when shit would hit the fan. Instead of leading us out of the recession from the start, he's gonna get Carter'd. :(

its definitely not going to turn around by November.

Nade Duck posted...

i'm aware of the similarities, it just feels gross in a serious context for me i guess. meh.

Youre being obtuse if you think its similar. Its the literal definition of a parasite.

DirtBasedSoap posted...

its definitely not going to turn around by November.

Probably not.
Again, too little and way too late.

But we can hope... Gas prices are coming down, at least... of course, Biden's gas tax holiday would mean prices shoot up right before the election season (face palm)

If we had ramped up military support to Ukraine sooner, they may have been able to kick Russia out by the fall and get an end to the conflict... Again, maybe. They've done damn well even before the big guns get to them, after all. Instead everything has been baby steps.

If the inflation and rate hikes cause a catastrophic decrease in consumer spending that hastens a downturn and in turn prices fall back to earth, the Fed might announce no more rate hikes later this year and cause stocks to soar... Very unlikely because there's just not enough time left (why didn't Biden push for this sooner?!), but it...could happen....

streamofthesky posted...

printed shit loads of money in 2020

Printing the money wasn't the problem, it was who they gave it to. If the money had gone to the poor, the working class and actual small businesses,* that money would have been spent and circulated back into the economy and helped to stave off the current recession; what they did instead was give the money to banks, corporations, one percenters and other dragons that spent it on stock buybacks, executive salaries, or otherwise just hoarded it. The lesson from the 2008 financial crisis taught us that the economy could have recovered faster if the money actually went to the people that need it, unfortunately this lesson was not heeded because a trillion dollars is a scary number and the average voter does not understand modern economics.

*Koch industries for example, is considered a "small business" because of how they have structured their vast empire, and many millionaires and billionaires use these loopholes to pay less in taxes, while collecting government subsidies.

KodyKeir posted...

Printing the money wasn't the problem, it was who they gave it to. If the money had gone to the poor, the working class and actual small businesses,* that money would have been spent and circulated back into the economy and helped to stave off the current recession; what they did instead was give the money to banks, corporations, one percenters and other dragons that spent it on stock buybacks, executive salaries, or otherwise just hoarded it. The lesson from the 2008 financial crisis taught us that the economy could have recovered faster if the money actually went to the people that need it, unfortunately this lesson was not heeded because a trillion dollars is a scary number and the average voter does not understand modern economics.

*Koch industries for example, is considered a "small business" because of how they have structured their vast empire, and many millionaires and billionaires use these loopholes to pay less in taxes, while collecting government subsidies.

There still would've been big inflation, you don't just print a ton of money without it impacting the value of the currency. I agree, it would have been far better spent just giving it to people directly, though.

The small business category is so fucking bull shit and rife with abuse. It basically incentivizes corporations to not hire Americans and to move most of their operations to other countries. It's so utterly fucking backwards and destructive and I hate it.

We never truly recovered from the Great Recession, because we didn't do much to fix the problems that caused it.
That's why even in Obama's 2nd term and Trump's term when the stock market and economy seemed to be booming, they kept rates near zero (and Trump outright bullied Powell into doing so and even wanted negative rates!).
That shouldn't be necessary if the economy is healthy.
That's why when there's bad news (poor job growth, earnings are down, etc...), stocks go up. They anticipate that the bad news means the Fed will dope them up w/ more free money and low rates. And when there's good news, the markets tank. Because they fear it means rate hikes are coming. Literally just happened Friday. stocks shot up on bad news, b/c they think it means the Fed will end the rate hikes earlier.
Our economy is totally fucking broken.

streamofthesky posted...

They don't need 60 in the Senate. Just 50 that are willing to nuke the filibuster over it.

Which they've never had at any point in their history.

streamofthesky posted...

Then in Trump's term, McConnell had no problem casting it aside to pass whatever the fuck they wanted and now all pretenses of playing nice are gone.

You know, I *really* don't like defending fucking Moscow Mitch, of all people, but one of the only good things I can say about him is that he never considered pushing to get rid of the filibuster and publicly shot down any discussion of it.

The filibuster never went anywhere during Trump's term - Moscow Mitch never got rid of it, or else we wouldn't be in this situation because in order to get rid of it he would have had to change the senate rules and those rules don't suddenly revert back to what they were when the term ends.

The only thing Moscow Mitch did was disallow filibustering on SCOTUS confirmations. Which, yes, is pretty scummy (though only, like, the 47th scummiest thing Moscow Mitch did that week, honestly), but the Democrats had already gotten rid of the filibuster for non-SCOTUS judicial confirmations during Obama's term (admittedly, in response to the Republicans deliberately gumming up the works to try and prevent Obama from filling judicial vacancies), so there was precedent there.

The filibuster remains for everything else, just as it always had. Moscow Mitch did not pass any law by getting rid of the filibuster. Hell, that's a big part of the reason why the ACA survived - they had one shot to pass it via reconciliation (a process that is not subject to filibuster) and when McCain torpedoed that effort, they lost their opportunity and would have needed the normal 60 votes afterwards, which they were never even close to having.

streamofthesky posted...

they just need the 50 pro-choice Dems willing to do it.

Which they also don't have.

streamofthesky posted...

try to expand the SC in a way that wouldn't let Republicans just one-up later (I saw one suggestion to have 1 justice per court district...).

This is literally impossible to do.

If the filibuster is removed and the court is expanded, there is nothing stopping the Republicans from doing the same next time they win undivided control of congress, no matter what way the Democrats structure it. They reinstitute the filibuster? Republicans can remove it again with a simple majority vote. They say "one justice per court district"? The Republicans can just say, "No, it should be two per district".

Not saying it's not worth doing - a court that's functional part of the time is better than a court that's functional none of the time, and since stare decisis clearly means nothing anymore, who gives a shit about law being "settled" - but let's not be under any illusions about what's going to happen. Perhaps when Roe v. Wade is reinstated for the 17th time by a 171-159 decision by the recently re-re-re-re-re-re-re-expanded Supreme Court, the adults in the room will finally get sick of the farce and demand things be fixed.

Honestly, though, I think there's better ways. Packing the court wastes too much political capital for something that can be easily countered every time one party gains full control of congress. If you really want to solve the SCOTUS problem, here's how you do it:
1) Institute term limits. Each justice sits for a single 9-year-term and can never sit on the court again once that term expires. To prevent sudden, rapid turnover, stagger the terms so that every year a justice retires and a new one is brought on.
2) Nominations are no longer the sole purview of the president. Instead,
-Four justices are nominated by each party (and their terms start on alternating years).
-The final justice is nominated by the president
-When a vacancy opens up, if there are not four justices nominated by each party (i.e. the vacancy results in a 5-3 imbalance), the party that does not have their full suite of justices gets to handle the nomination. Otherwise (i.e. in the case of a 4-4 tie), the president gets the nomination.
-All nominations must be heard by the senate and voted on within three months or the justice is automatically seated. The threshold for a SCOTUS nominee to be seated is set at 60 votes.

This reduces the potential for political dog-fucking like what the Republicans did, it makes the SCOTUS less of an election prize (since the ideological makeup of the court is set and the president will be guaranteed to have an ideological majority within a year of taking office). It also prevents random chance from resulting in wild ideological swings in the court (like how Trump got to nominate more SCOTUS justices than any president since Reagan, despite only being a one-term president). The 60 vote requirement will also require that, unless there is a massive political tilt in one party's favour (unlikely, with current political dynamics), bipartisan votes will be required, which should prevent the worst of the ideological wingnuts from being nominated.

darkknight109 posted...

You know, I *really* don't like defending fucking Moscow Mitch, of all people, but one of the only good things I can say about him is that he never considered pushing to get rid of the filibuster and publicly shot down any discussion of it.

And why would he, the filibuster has been used extensively to block minorities from being granted rights and privileges since it's accidental inception in 1806.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster_in_the_United_States_Senate#History

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/truck-driver-rams-into-protesters-roe-demonstration-in-iowa_n_62b66490e4b0cdccbe6b9399

Truck Driver Rams Into Abortion Rights Demonstrators At Roe Rally In Iowa

KodyKeir posted...

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/truck-driver-rams-into-protesters-roe-demonstration-in-iowa_n_62b66490e4b0cdccbe6b9399

How pro-life

This man regrets being sexually irresponsible and so women shouldn't have control over their own medical decisions. It's almost like it's not about saving precious life. https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/2/0/5/AAAgaZAADYml.jpg

maybe...ban sex before marriage because...you have no self control or knowledge of contraceptives?

yeah that's some solid logic right there

i hope he got shit on in the replies

Adam_Savage posted...

maybe...ban sex before marriage because...you have no self control or knowledge of contraceptives?

yeah that's some solid logic right there

i hope he got shit on in the replies

I mean I shit on him

good

bukkake that man in shit

It never ceases to amaze how much men make their incompetence a problem that women need to fix or be responsible for. I can't wait for the day when men take personal responsibility for their own lives.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/2/4/3/AAQwHjAADYnL.jpg

darkknight109 posted...

Which they've never had at any point in their history.

You know, I *really* don't like defending fucking Moscow Mitch, of all people, but one of the only good things I can say about him is that he never considered pushing to get rid of the filibuster and publicly shot down any discussion of it.

The filibuster never went anywhere during Trump's term - Moscow Mitch never got rid of it, or else we wouldn't be in this situation because in order to get rid of it he would have had to change the senate rules and those rules don't suddenly revert back to what they were when the term ends.

The only thing Moscow Mitch did was disallow filibustering on SCOTUS confirmations. Which, yes, is pretty scummy (though only, like, the 47th scummiest thing Moscow Mitch did that week, honestly), but the Democrats had already gotten rid of the filibuster for non-SCOTUS judicial confirmations during Obama's term (admittedly, in response to the Republicans deliberately gumming up the works to try and prevent Obama from filling judicial vacancies), so there was precedent there.

That's not true. He not only forced Dems to end it for court appointments by flat out blocking any at all when Obama was president, but also the removal of the filibuster to cabinet appointments (same reason: he blanket blocked all of them). Which is how particularly noxious Trump picks like Betsy Devos were able to get in despite bipartisan disapproval.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/07/betsy-devos-confirmed-education-secretary-pence-trump-cabinet

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/11/18/president-trumps-cabinet-picks-are-likely-to-be-easily-confirmed-thats-because-of-senate-democrats/

And yes, expanding it to the SC was a huge extension. Of the change he engineered in the first place.
Point is, after experiencing all of that bs, Dems should be on board with shit canning the whole filibuster now, once they actually have the votes for it (Manchin and Sinema will not play ball). And you can be certain since they so much as talked about it, Mitch will absolutely do the same if he gets total power again, anyway. And then use the temporary invincibility to pass all sorts of shit to restrict voting and seal a Republican majority forever. If Dems break the filibuster first, they can add new states and make it much harder for Republicans to get a majority in the Senate again. Plus pass voting protection laws and anti-gerrymandering laws to make it impossible for Republicans to ever win the House again w/o actually winning the popular vote.
I don't know why you don't see how dire it is, but it's straight up rocket tag at this point.

Which they also don't have.

They could next year, if the economy weren't fucking them over. The whole reason the 2020 blue wave didn't deliver a stronger Senate majority was b/c it was a bad map (also, WTF happened in Maine?). This year is supposed to be a "good map". Multiple Republican seats up for grabs in blue/purple states, almost no Dem seats in red/purple states up for grabs.
Which is why this shit is so frustrating...

This is literally impossible to do.

Well, if the options are: a) do nothing about it and let radical right wing zealots destroy every law they want for the rest of our time as a country or b) alternate every few years whether they have that power or not; then I choose b)...

1) Institute term limits. Each justice sits for a single 9-year-term and can never sit on the court again once that term expires. To prevent sudden, rapid turnover, stagger the terms so that every year a justice retires and a new one is brought on.

Worthless unless it retroactively applies to the current justices, which it won't.
Republicans have a lock on the court even if Thomas is replaced by a Dem nominee for the next 30-40 years.
Plus, Mitch or his demonic successor would probably just undo that law once he has total power and it's beneficial to do so, anyway.

2) Nominations are no longer the sole purview of the president. Instead,
-Four justices are nominated by each party (and their terms start on alternating years).
-The final justice is nominated by the president
-When a vacancy opens up, if there are not four justices nominated by each party (i.e. the vacancy results in a 5-3 imbalance), the party that does not have their full suite of justices gets to handle the nomination. Otherwise (i.e. in the case of a 4-4 tie), the president gets the nomination.
-All nominations must be heard by the senate and voted on within three months or the justice is automatically seated. The threshold for a SCOTUS nominee to be seated is set at 60 votes.

This reduces the potential for political dog-fucking like what the Republicans did, it makes the SCOTUS less of an election prize (since the ideological makeup of the court is set and the president will be guaranteed to have an ideological majority within a year of taking office). It also prevents random chance from resulting in wild ideological swings in the court (like how Trump got to nominate more SCOTUS justices than any president since Reagan, despite only being a one-term president). The 60 vote requirement will also require that, unless there is a massive political tilt in one party's favour (unlikely, with current political dynamics), bipartisan votes will be required, which should prevent the worst of the ideological wingnuts from being nominated.

Other than the 60 vote requirement, which guarantees no Dem 5th seat pick will ever make it to the court ever again, this would be a better system.
But unless they kick out existing members to create said court immediately, it once again does nothing for the above reasons.
I also don't like tying it to the two party system because I still want to hold out hope that one day we'll escape it, or at least that the Republican party will die.

ZangsBeard posted...

Youre being obtuse if you think its similar. Its the literal definition of a parasite.

Aside from the "another species" thing. Intra-specific parasitism is also a thing (i.e. landlords), but parasitism also requires the host to gain no benefit from the infestation (otherwise it's symbiosis), and successfully reproducing is not only beneficial, it's arguably the only point life has. That is, of course, speaking strictly biologically, but it's nonetheless a benefit.

Of course, the distinction between an unwanted symbiote and a parasite is completely academic, but such is the realm of "literal definitions."

Jen0125 posted...

It never ceases to amaze how much men make their incompetence a problem that women need to fix or be responsible for. I can't wait for the day when men take personal responsibility for their own lives.

Yeah, producing four unplanned kids means you're doing something very, very wrong. Trying to generalize that to every sex-haver as a means of solving the "abortion problem" is so idiotically out of touch that I'm amazed he remembers to breathe every morning.

adjl posted...

Yeah, producing four unplanned kids means you're doing something very, very wrong. Trying to generalize that to every sex-haver as a means of solving the "abortion problem" is so idiotically out of touch that I'm amazed he remembers to breathe every morning.

Well it's okay adjl. He said he eventually got a vasectomy he allegedly "had to wait hours in line" for. Not sure where they do that at but

Jen0125 posted...

Well it's okay adjl. He said he eventually got a vasectomy he allegedly "had to wait hours in line" for. Not sure where they do that at but

Oh man, he's so lucky. I camped out overnight to line up for a vasectomy but some douchebag scalper three spots ahead of me bought the last hundred.

What a weird comment. That makes me think he didn't actually get a vasectomy and he's just displaying even more of his ignorance of birth control by not understanding how to lie about it convincingly.

I support the pro-choice movement because numerous studies have shown that it can be related to a reduction of crime. Also, any female who would consider an abortion probably shouldnt be a mother anyways.

adjl posted...

Oh man, he's so lucky. I camped out overnight to line up for a vasectomy but some douchebag scalper three spots ahead of me bought the last hundred.

What a weird comment. That makes me think he didn't actually get a vasectomy and he's just displaying even more of his ignorance of birth control by not understanding how to lie about it convincingly.

Having a man act like it's hard to get a vasectomy is my first hint that they didn't even try to get one lol

zebatov posted...

I support the pro-choice movement because numerous studies have shown that it can be related to a reduction of crime. Also, any female who would consider an abortion probably shouldnt be a mother anyways.

God yeah all those teenagers and women that are raped should never be mothers ever

Jen0125 posted...

Having a man act like it's hard to get a vasectomy is my first hint that they didn't even try to get one lol

I had to make two appointments! The first one was a counseling session where the urologist said youre old enough to make your own choices and this is technically not a reversible surgery. I will try, but it will cost you $10,000 for the attempt and its not guaranteed to work, still want to do this? Okay, make a second appointment

Oh yeah, I was like 22 or 23 when I was old enough to make a choice to never have kids even though I didnt have any yet.

It was so fucking hard, you guys.

And then I had to feel the vas deferens being tugged out of my prostrate! It was terrible!

Oh, and dont forget smelling my own balls being burnt to cauterize the tiny little cut!

I was emotionally scared for life. It was so bad I drove home like 15 minutes later.

Jen0125 posted...

Having a man act like it's hard to get a vasectomy is my first hint that they didn't even try to get one lol

I know my friend (who was 30-32ish at the time) was actually discouraged from getting one (in Canada), but that was purely because the doctor set him straight on how feasible it is to reverse them, since he didn't want to completely rule out kids and the doctor didn't want to mislead him and be the reason he couldn't have any. I expect that if he had said that he didn't want kids, it would have been no problem, which is a very different story from what women under 40-50 face when they ask for tubals.

adjl posted...

I know my friend (who was 30-32ish at the time) was actually discouraged from getting one (in Canada), but that was purely because the doctor set him straight on how feasible it is to reverse them, since he didn't want to completely rule out kids and the doctor didn't want to mislead him and be the reason he couldn't have any. I expect that if he had said that he didn't want kids, it would have been no problem, which is a very different story from what women under 40-50 face when they ask for tubals.

That makes sense to have some further coaching from your doctor.

That is kind of their job, after all.

adjl posted...

That is kind of their job, after all.

I actually found a doctor here that I was able to go to who doesn't discourage sterilization but she convinced me against it anyways when she said if I get my tubes tied and IUD removed I'll get my period back

zebatov posted...

I support the pro-choice movement because numerous studies have shown that it can be related to a reduction of crime. Also, any female who would consider an abortion probably shouldnt be a mother anyways.

What a shit comment.

Revelation34 posted...

What a shit comment.

Comments like that are how you can identify who is actually anti-choice because they hate women

Jen0125 posted...

Comments like that are how you can identify who is actually anti-choice because they hate women

There's some nugget of merit in it in that it's probably going to be better for all involved parties if somebody who doesn't want a baby doesn't end up with a baby, but the phrasing and probable underlying sentiment is indeed overtly misogynistic, as is him all but explicitly saying "I don't care about women's rights, but abortion seems to yield some broader social benefit, so I guess it's good." But then it's Zeb, so we expect such deplorable opinions from him.

Bonus points where, in the context of him arguing that masks are pointless because they don't provide 100% protection, he revealed that he doesn't use birth control and doesn't see a problem with that.

I mean legal abortion has nothing but benefits. I don't see how people think forcing women who don't want kids to have kids will make them good mothers lol.

Not sure how this turned into talking about vasectomies. Women can get tubal ligation, have the Plan B pill (for now...), have IUD, etc...
Doesn't change the fact that abortion rights are important to preserve.

Jen0125 posted...

Having a man act like it's hard to get a vasectomy is my first hint that they didn't even try to get one lol

You're a woman, so I thought your opinion is not valid on that topic?

streamofthesky posted...

You're a woman, so I thought your opinion is not valid on that topic?

It's not an opinion that it's medically easier for men to get vasectomies than for women to get sterilized.

streamofthesky posted...

You're a woman, so I thought your opinion is not valid on that topic?

And in this post, we have the fragilest of masculinities.

ZangsBeard posted...

And in this post, we have the fragilest of masculinities.

She spent 500 posts telling pro-choice men their opinion on abortion was less valid than Amy Comey Barrett's was trying to take away other women's right to choose, because apparently owning one vagina means you own all of the vaginas.

So no, I'm not going to just forget her misandry and hypocrisy. Stay mad.

ZangsBeard posted...

And in this post, we have the fragilest of masculinities.

Right? He can't get over being told his opinion of a man doesn't mean as much in the area of women's rights and he thinks carrying on like a petulant child about it is going to make a difference. It just shows how little you actually value women lol

streamofthesky posted...

She spent 500 posts telling pro-choice men their opinion on abortion was less valid than Amy Comey Barrett's was trying to take away other women's right to choose, because apparently owning one vagina means you own all of the vaginas.

So no, I'm not going to just forget her misandry and hypocrisy. Stay mad.

If you want to expose my hypocrisy then do it right. Don't bring up shit that isn't comparable to pat your own back.

You are seriously a terrible ally. You need to do serious self reflection.

streamofthesky posted...

She spent 500 posts telling pro-choice men their opinion on abortion was less valid than Amy Comey Barrett's was trying to take away other women's right to choose, because apparently owning one vagina means you own all of the vaginas.

So no, I'm not going to just forget her misandry and hypocrisy. Stay mad.

The only one showing any emotion is the guy who feels the need to purposefully misrepresent arguments of someone else in a different topic about. But go off.

I'm sure stream also gets to decide if he's actually a good ally for women's rights or not lol

Jen0125 posted...

Right? He can't get over being told his opinion of a man doesn't mean as much in the area of women's rights and he thinks carrying on like a petulant child about it is going to make a difference. It just shows how little you actually value women lol

No, you just keep showing how much you despise men.

Jen0125 posted...

If you want to expose my hypocrisy then do it right. Don't bring up shit that isn't comparable to pat your own back.

You can never get a vasectomy. It is biologically impossible for you to do so. You will never truly understand it the way a man can. Your opinion on them is inherently less valuable than any man's, no matter his view of them.
That's your own fucking logic.

You are seriously a terrible ally. You need to do serious self reflection.

You're a terrible ally. You insult and drive away people that support choice for absolutely nothing, and never have the self-awareness to realize or care about that.
I'll continue supporting choice for the sake of poor women who can't afford to travel to another state and get the procedure done, and in spite of your efforts to divide us.

Jen0125 posted...

It's not an opinion that it's medically easier for men to get vasectomies than for women to get sterilized.

It's also not an opinion that it's safer for a woman to get an abortion than carry a pregnancy to term (or rather, both are opinions, but they're based on obvious empirical information that everyone has access to regardless of gender), so the analogy isn't out of place.

streamofthesky posted...

You can never get a vasectomy. It is biologically impossible for you to do so. You will never truly understand it the way a man can. Your opinion on them is inherently less valuable than any man's, no matter his view of them.
That's your own fucking logic.

What does that have to do with facts? I haven't expressed any opinion on vasectomies.

streamofthesky posted...

You're a terrible ally. You insult and drive away people that support choice for absolutely nothing, and never have the self-awareness to realize or care about that.
I'll continue supporting choice for the sake of poor women who can't afford to travel to another state and get the procedure done, and in spite of your efforts to divide us.

Just another example of you being a terrible ally. You're not helping yourself.

And I'm not an ally lol. I'm the affected party. You really need to figure out what you're trying to argue about here.

Not gonna go back and forth with this guy again about his sad feelings and hurt ego lol he's gonna come insult me in his next post again because he's mad a woman told him no

And if I only could
I'd make a deal with God
And I'd get men to learn what ally means

I'm the best ally because I'm super funny.