You don’t seem to understand my question. As I said, I know that the Roe decision includes provision for the state to “protect prenatal life”. I get it. I really do. My question is why? Why should the rights of hypothetical potential life ever outweigh the rights of actual existent life? Referring to the Roe decision…

Why? Why should a pregnant person’s rights be balanced against the “rights” of the fetus, regardless of viability?

Roe is obviously not enough as a “practical answer” given the multiple court cases since then attempting to specify what exactly the state may do in service of its “compelling interest” and what constitutes an “undue burden”.

Forced abortion is not the same as available abortion regardless of circumstance; supporting the later does not necessitate or imply support of the former.

I’m strongly pro-choice, yet even I don’t support unfettered abortion on demand in all cases. To create an extreme example, I don’t support the right to abort a full-term healthy baby who is days or hours away from birth.

I realize that his pre-trial “makeover” was a calculated move to try to garner sympathy, but I think it is important to continue to use the “madeover” image now that he has been convicted. We specifically need to combat the idea that “Harry would never rape Hermione” because there is no one image of what a rapist…

(from the lovely Robot Hugs)

I was endlessly annoyed when (spoilers I guess?) Black Widow’s Deep Dark Secret in Avengers 2 was that she couldn’t have babies. It was like they couldn’t think of something to trouble the brainwashed child-spy-turned-assassin-turned-superhero beyond something coded specifically female.

Yeah. It is weird that conservatives are getting their collective panties in such a twist over this.

As stated in the article, this directive is coming after several state-level attempts to regulate bathrooms. Who uses which bathroom is a silly thing to worry about. So why are conservatives so focused on it?

If you’re absolutely going to be executed regardless of your own actions, why not exercise that last bit of control and choose the axe?

I am, in fact familiar with the kool-aid reference. I was asking for clarification because simply saying “you’re delusional” is not actually a position.

At what point did I claim control over whether someone objectifies me? At what point did I claim that there is power in being dehumanized? You were so close to actually engaging in what could be a really interesting conversation but then you decided to be dismissive instead.

I found the story! Looks like the son was 19 at the time.

Why not? Use your words. Support your position.

I remember a story a while back about parents releasing a newspaper correction to their original birth announcement for their kid. It was something along the lines of “We mistakenly said that we had given birth to a daughter and have since been informed that we in fact have an awesome son!”

Tell you what, give me a complete list of acceptable “non-buzz” words that I can use. Then maybe we can have an actual discussion instead of whatever this is.

It doesn’t have to mean anything to you to be worthwhile. It doesn’t have to register to anyone for it to be worthwhile. It can simply have meaning to the specific artist/protestor.

I’m aware of the laws and further aware that “You’re being inconsistent” is not going to get the laws changed. I even know that smoking and drinking are public health issues. All I am saying is that we should collectively decide an age to consider someone an adult and then fully grant them all the…

That must be a regional brand; I mostly drink “I get to decide what to do with my own damn body, up to and including displaying it in a manner of my choosing; fuck anyone who tries to tell me differently” kool-aid. Admitedly the name is a bit long but it is rather tasty.