[Abortion Thread] A Tough Pill To Swallow

[Fahran]

So...the issue is far more complex then that. Until 40 days, so about 6 weeks, the fetus is not considered well, anything really. That said, that 6 weeks is when a woman normally learns she is pregnent, so the question becomes is that 40 days of actual pregnancy, 40 days from the last period? 40 days from knowing about the pregnancy? More than that, it is questionable whether a fetus is considered a person in Judaism, considering the difference between how a pregnant woman is treated if just the pregnancy is ended due to a fight, or if the woman herself is injured. More than that, health of the mother covers a lot more ground then people think, including the mental health of the mother. SO if remianing pregnant creates severe emotional harm on a woman, abortion is permissible.

A strict adherence to halacha places a lot of hurdles in front of the most common pro-choice positions on abortion. Really, the one fact that is absolutely beyond dispute is that abortion is, at the very least permissible, when a mother's life is endangered. Some sources even assert that abortion is mandatory in these cases. The Orthodox, in particular, hold very stringent requirements for abortion to be permissible.

The interpretation you're putting forward here does actually align very closely to that of Conservative Jews, namely that abortion is permissible when a mother may experience severe physical or emotional harm. That said, published responsa have condemned the view that abortion may be undertaken on demand or to address financial issues. That said... in the US congregations possess broad authority to determine their own course and pretty much always have. And most Jewish people support a very lenient approach to abortion - which is likely reflected in how rabbis handle it, especially on an interpersonal level. Which, honestly, is probably the best approach.

[New haven america]

Actually, Islam and Judaism are both AOK with abortion.

Not really no. Judaism is only ok with abortion if it’s to save the life of the mother, and that it should only be a decision between a married couple.

Outside of that judaism does not allow abortion

A. No, both reform and conservative Judaism are fine with it, with differing extents obviously, but neither are or ever will advocate a near total or total ban on it anytime soon.

B. Even Orthodoxy (Which isn't even that true to the name, but that's a different topic for a different day...) still has the 40-day reprieve period, where for the first 40 days an embryo doesn't even have a soul let alone anything else denoting it as a person or even living being. However, the first 40 days is a weird way to count as the Torah/Tanakh nor Talmud really specify what those 40 days are. After conception? After learning? etc... So they basically take a stance of "Whatever works for your community." Some are stricter on the 6 week mark, others are less so and view it as 40 days after finding out.

C. "Life of The Mother" is a rather wide-reaching term in Judaism. In a lot of traditions that has various different meanings, in some it's literal, in some it can be grouped in with financial, in some it can be grouped in with potential health during or after, etc...

Basically, "The Life of The Mother" is practiced through how the potential mother or couple would feel about her life during or after the birth in most cases, not all obviously, but for most it's usually her call.

Really, most Mediterranean women before Rome used to drink a lot of abortifacients, Jewish women were no exception.

[Elwher]

But by the 10th, the protection of those rights not delegated to the Federal government is reverted to the states.

That is not how the 10th Amendment works, or rights in general. It also completely ignores the 14th Amendment.

The 10th Amendment says "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Notice it doesn't say anything about rights, their protection or their violation. It is all about powers, like the power to tax pass laws, or imprison people. Nor does the bill of rights actually give the federal government the "power" to protect rights, the bill of rights is instead a list of restrictions on the power of the federal government. At the time the constitution was written states could violate the bill of rights as much as they wanted and the federal government wouldn't do anything, because the federal government didn't have the "power" to protect rights. After the civil war the 14th Amendment was passed and it says that states can not violate the rights of US citizens. Again this doesn't give the federal government the "power" to protect rights but instead says states don't have the "power" to violate those rights.

True to a point. The underlying question, and one that various legal scholars have disputes on, is what those rights that the States cannot violate are. The Federal government is, as you say, limited in what it can protect. The 10th says that they have power over those things enumerated in the Constitution, so with the 14th the states cannot, for example, pass laws violating freedom of speech as that right is explicitly laid out in the Constitution. The right to regulate medical procedures, however, is not explicit in the Constitution. The 14th, which states "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." It does not go into how those privileges or immunities are to be defined, and it does allow states to deprive any person of life, liberty, or property with due process of law. An argument can be made that by the representatives passing a law that does not violate any of the stated freedoms in the Constitution, due process has been maintained.

As to the last point, if the Federal government can force the States to not violate certain rights, then that is the power to protect those rights.

[Fahran]

That is not how the 10th Amendment works, or rights in general. It also completely ignores the 14th Amendment.

The 10th Amendment says "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Notice it doesn't say anything about rights, their protection or their violation. It is all about powers, like the power to tax pass laws, or imprison people. Nor does the bill of rights actually give the federal government the "power" to protect rights, the bill of rights is instead a list of restrictions on the power of the federal government. At the time the constitution was written states could violate the bill of rights as much as they wanted and the federal government wouldn't do anything, because the federal government didn't have the "power" to protect rights. After the civil war the 14th Amendment was passed and it says that states can not violate the rights of US citizens. Again this doesn't give the federal government the "power" to protect rights but instead says states don't have the "power" to violate those rights.

True to a point. The underlying question, and one that various legal scholars have disputes on, is what those rights that the States cannot violate are. The Federal government is, as you say, limited in what it can protect. The 10th says that they have power over those things enumerated in the Constitution, so with the 14th the states cannot, for example, pass laws violating freedom of speech as that right is explicitly laid out in the Constitution. The right to regulate medical procedures, however, is not explicit in the Constitution. The 14th, which states "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." It does not go into how those privileges or immunities are to be defined, and it does allow states to deprive any person of life, liberty, or property with due process of law. An argument can be made that by the representatives passing a law that does not violate any of the stated freedoms in the Constitution, due process has been maintained.

As to the last point, if the Federal government can force the States to not violate certain rights, then that is the power to protect those rights.

We also haven't addressed the infinite number of both positive and negative rights, in many cases contradictory, that may well be discovered through the 9th and 14th amendments under such a broad interpretation. An absolute right to life and death, without any qualification, for instance. Mind you, abortion has never been asserted as an absolute right - not even under Roe v. Wade where complete bans could be imposed during the third trimester. The SCOTUS, in making the original ruling, did envision a vast body of rights, but the logic was quite different from that employed by our colleague here when it comes to the concrete details.

[Fahran]

A. No, both reform and conservative Judaism are fine with it, with differing extents obviously, but neither are or ever will advocate a near total or total ban on it anytime soon.

I'm not certain "fine" is the word I'd use to describe the position of Conservative Judaism, or even Reform Judaism, on abortion. There's not really any consistent support for elective abortion or financially-motivated abortion in Judaism.

As I mentioned above, the Reform position is that abortion should not be a means of birth control, should not be motivated by financial concerns or pressures from partners or family, and should not be undertaken lightly. It should serve to safeguard and fortify the mother's physical, mental, and emotional health. Reform Judaism differs from Conservative Judaism principally in that it provides more concrete examples - such as stating outright that abortion in instances of sexual violence is always permissible. Depending on the rabbi you ask, a lot of the abortions carried out each year might not be permissible based on the rulings that have been given.

And that's the most permissive position of any Jewish denomination that hasn't become de facto atheistic and/or heretical. That said, the Reform and Conservative denominations has pretty routinely taken a more understanding and permissive stance than Evangelicals, especially when it comes to the writing of secular laws governing abortion.

I'd just be very careful about outright saying "Jews are pro-choice" without further clarification. I suspect we're largely more pro-choice than other groups, but that many Jewish people would get more apprehensive as the pregnancy approaches fetal viability.

B. Even Orthodoxy (Which isn't even that true to the name, but that's a different topic for a different day...) still has the 40-day reprieve period, where for the first 40 days an embryo doesn't even have a soul. However, the first 40 days is a weird way to count as the Torah/Tanakh nor Talmud really specify what those 40 days are. After conception? After learning? etc... So they basically take a stance of "Whatever works for your community." Some are stricter on the 6 week mark, others are less so and view it as 40 days after finding out.

Ensoulment doesn't occur until a child has been born and taken its first breath, but that's not really relevant to the issue of abortion within halacha or Jewish ethics.

I'll let Orthodox rabbis speak for themselves to give some idea of what their stance is.

The Orthodox Union is unable to either mourn or celebrate the U.S. Supreme Court’s overturning of Roe v Wade. We cannot support absolute bans on abortion—at any time point in a pregnancy—that would not allow access to abortion in lifesaving situations. Similarly, we cannot support legislation that does not limit abortion to situations in which medical (including mental health) professionals affirm that carrying the pregnancy to term poses real risk to the life of the mother.

As people of faith, we see life as a precious gift granted to us and maintained within us by G-d. Jewish law places paramount value on choosing life and mandates—not as a right but as a responsibility—safeguarding our own lives and the lives of others by behaving in a healthy and secure manner, doing everything in our power to save lives, and refraining from endangering others. This concern for even potential life extends to the unborn fetus and to the terminally ill.

The “right to choose” (as well as the “right to die”)—are thus completely at odds with our religious and halachic values. Legislation and court rulings that enshrine such rights concern us deeply on a societal level.

Yet, that same mandate to preserve life requires us to be concerned for the life of the mother. Jewish law prioritizes the life of the pregnant mother over the life of the fetus such that where the pregnancy critically endangers the physical health or mental health of the mother, an abortion may be authorized, if not mandated, by Halacha and should be available to all women irrespective of their economic status. Legislation and court rulings, federally or in any state, that absolutely ban abortion without regard for the health of the mother would literally limit our ability to live our lives in accordance with our responsibility to preserve life.

The extreme polarization around and politicization of the abortion issue does not bode well for a much-needed nuanced result. Human life—the value of everyone created in the Divine Image—is far too important.

Source

This opinion is actually a surprisingly lenient one to get from an Orthodox organization. A good many, especially in Charedi communities, take an even more hardline approach. That said, the Orthodox opinion, here and in my experience, is broadly pro-life - only valuing the life of the mother over the life of the fetus. Hence the emphasis on "critical" above.

The old adage about two Jews and three opinions makes sense here.

C. "Life of The Mother" is a rather wide-reaching term in Judaism. In a lot of traditions that has various different meanings, in some it's literal, in some it can be grouped in with financial, in some it can be grouped in with potential health during or after, etc...

It's not really ever grouped in directly with financial concerns - even in Reform Judaism. But, yes, a multitude of opinions exist - ranging from very stringent to quite lenient. I do not think the position on elective abortion that has often been put forward here is very Jewish, even when it does borrow from the language of Jewish arguments in favor of abortion.

Basically, "The Life of The Mother" is practiced through how the potential mother or couple would feel about her life during or after the birth in most cases, not all obviously, but for most it's usually her call.

True to an extent, especially for Conservative and Reform Judaism. Less true for Orthodox Judaism. I will simply reiterate that the language used suggests that extreme physical, emotional, mental, or psychological harm justifies abortion. There's a lot of inherent subjectivity to that. I'll also mention that my own stance on abortion is motivated more by a secular approach since y'all really don't want my interpretation of halacha imposed on the United States.

Really, most Mediterranean women before Rome used to drink a lot of abortifacients, Jewish women were no exception.

I'd be careful about wording the claim in this way. But, yes, women have used abortifacients in the past. And we have quite a lot of documentation of this.

[New-Minneapolis]

I honestly don’t think those who are against legal abortion and against legal contraception is living in the real word, and don’t have a understanding how for general populous approaches their sexuality.

[Fahran]

I honestly don’t think those who are against legal abortion and against legal contraception is living in the real word, and don’t have a understanding how for general populous approaches their sexuality.

A lot of people seem not to be aware of how effective comprehensive sex education and access to cheap contraceptives can be at reducing the prevalence of unwanted pregnancy. Especially those who oppose both things.

[Spirit of Hope]

That is not how the 10th Amendment works, or rights in general. It also completely ignores the 14th Amendment.

The 10th Amendment says "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Notice it doesn't say anything about rights, their protection or their violation. It is all about powers, like the power to tax pass laws, or imprison people. Nor does the bill of rights actually give the federal government the "power" to protect rights, the bill of rights is instead a list of restrictions on the power of the federal government. At the time the constitution was written states could violate the bill of rights as much as they wanted and the federal government wouldn't do anything, because the federal government didn't have the "power" to protect rights. After the civil war the 14th Amendment was passed and it says that states can not violate the rights of US citizens. Again this doesn't give the federal government the "power" to protect rights but instead says states don't have the "power" to violate those rights.

True to a point. The underlying question, and one that various legal scholars have disputes on, is what those rights that the States cannot violate are. The Federal government is, as you say, limited in what it can protect. The 10th says that they have power over those things enumerated in the Constitution, so with the 14th the states cannot, for example, pass laws violating freedom of speech as that right is explicitly laid out in the Constitution. The right to regulate medical procedures, however, is not explicit in the Constitution. The 14th, which states "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." It does not go into how those privileges or immunities are to be defined, and it does allow states to deprive any person of life, liberty, or property with due process of law. An argument can be made that by the representatives passing a law that does not violate any of the stated freedoms in the Constitution, due process has been maintained.

As to the last point, if the Federal government can force the States to not violate certain rights, then that is the power to protect those rights.

The argument that "the state can take your rights away if it votes to take your rights away," is a terrible legal take and not what due process of the law is referring to. What it is referring to is that the state does have the power to take your rights away if it follows due process of the legal system, that is generally if you have been convicted of a crime. So the state can deprive you of your rights when you are imprisoned.

The federal government doesn't enforce on the states to not violate the rights, the federal judiciary does, a distinction that you don't appear to understand but an important one. The federal government, agencies headed by the president and given power by congress, has very little power to tell states to stop violating rights. Instead the federal judiciary is generally the people that are telling states, and the federal government, to stop violating peoples rights.

Now it is very true to say that the specific rights citizens have is not well laid out in the constitution, but that isn't a huge issue as long as you aren't an idiot who slavishly follows to what is written in the constitution (ignoring the 9th) and an a historical interpretation of what was acceptable at the time of the founding fathers. Aka the position of the federalist society, the organization who the Republican party has basically delegated the power of choosing justices to.

The case history of the right to an abortion in the US is robust (with two SCOTUS decisions upholding it building off of lower court decisions), up until a court filled with justices specifically chosen to strike it down was pushed into power. This court has been a disaster in other ways, but that is beyond the scope of this thread.

[New-Minneapolis]

I honestly don’t think those who are against legal abortion and against legal contraception is living in the real word, and don’t have a understanding how for general populous approaches their sexuality.

A lot of people seem not to be aware of how effective comprehensive sex education and access to cheap contraceptives can be at reducing the prevalence of unwanted pregnancy. Especially those who oppose both things.

They just don’t like idea people not wanting to have children but still want to have sex. Contraceptives are very effective and they becoming even more effective. As a former religious conservative, I can admit it IS about forcing a certain lifestyle choice upon the general populace because they think that consenting adults having sex, and taking responsibility by using contraceptives somehow contributes the the ills of society. I don’t know how anyone can argue against non-abortive contraceptives unless one is religious or buy into the “ there’s no such thing as overpopulation, we are actually under populated.” conspiracy theory that folks like Tate and Musk buy into

[Laasmistan]

I honestly don’t think those who are against legal abortion and against legal contraception is living in the real word, and don’t have a understanding how for general populous approaches their sexuality.

Well, those people tend to be the sorts who believe sex is ONLY for reproduction. They're a fringe minority thankfully.

[Fahran]

A lot of people seem not to be aware of how effective comprehensive sex education and access to cheap contraceptives can be at reducing the prevalence of unwanted pregnancy. Especially those who oppose both things.

They just don’t like idea people not wanting to have children but still want to have sex. Contraceptives are very effective and they becoming even more effective. As a former religious conservative, I can admit it IS about forcing a certain lifestyle choice upon the general populace because they think that consenting adults having sex, and taking responsibility by using contraceptives somehow contributes the the ills of society. I don’t know how anyone can argue against non-abortive contraceptives unless one is religious or buy into the “ there’s no such thing as overpopulation, we are actually under populated.” conspiracy theory that folks like Tate and Musk buy into

I mean wide scale promiscuity and hook-up culture are probably both awful for society and people who engage in them, but I think my own preference is to simply favor more stable social models through subtle and gentle means. Really, bad decisions about your romantic and sexual life often come back to bite you in the butt anyway. Mind you, I think that’s more than a little off-topic. Especially if you don’t approach abortion and contraception from that angle or you assume the motivations are closer to home and/or about promoting the Good Life.

Overpopulation is actually a myth.

[Elwher]

True to a point. The underlying question, and one that various legal scholars have disputes on, is what those rights that the States cannot violate are. The Federal government is, as you say, limited in what it can protect. The 10th says that they have power over those things enumerated in the Constitution, so with the 14th the states cannot, for example, pass laws violating freedom of speech as that right is explicitly laid out in the Constitution. The right to regulate medical procedures, however, is not explicit in the Constitution. The 14th, which states "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." It does not go into how those privileges or immunities are to be defined, and it does allow states to deprive any person of life, liberty, or property with due process of law. An argument can be made that by the representatives passing a law that does not violate any of the stated freedoms in the Constitution, due process has been maintained.

As to the last point, if the Federal government can force the States to not violate certain rights, then that is the power to protect those rights.

The argument that "the state can take your rights away if it votes to take your rights away," is a terrible legal take and not what due process of the law is referring to. What it is referring to is that the state does have the power to take your rights away if it follows due process of the legal system, that is generally if you have been convicted of a crime. So the state can deprive you of your rights when you are imprisoned.

The federal government doesn't enforce on the states to not violate the rights, the federal judiciary does, a distinction that you don't appear to understand but an important one. The federal government, agencies headed by the president and given power by congress, has very little power to tell states to stop violating rights. Instead the federal judiciary is generally the people that are telling states, and the federal government, to stop violating peoples rights.

Now it is very true to say that the specific rights citizens have is not well laid out in the constitution, but that isn't a huge issue as long as you aren't an idiot who slavishly follows to what is written in the constitution (ignoring the 9th) and an a historical interpretation of what was acceptable at the time of the founding fathers. Aka the position of the federalist society, the organization who the Republican party has basically delegated the power of choosing justices to.

The case history of the right to an abortion in the US is robust (with two SCOTUS decisions upholding it building off of lower court decisions), up until a court filled with justices specifically chosen to strike it down was pushed into power. This court has been a disaster in other ways, but that is beyond the scope of this thread.

"What it is referring to is that the state does have the power to take your rights away if it follows due process of the legal system, that is generally if you have been convicted of a crime". But it is within the power of the state to determine what a crime is, within the confines of the Federal Constitution.

"The federal government doesn't enforce on the states to not violate the rights, the federal judiciary does, a distinction that you don't appear to understand but an important one" The Federal government is composed of three branches, legislative, executive, and judiciary. The courts are a part of the government, not an entity standing outside of it.

"Now it is very true to say that the specific rights citizens have is not well laid out in the constitution, but that isn't a huge issue as long as you aren't an idiot who slavishly follows to what is written in the constitution (ignoring the 9th)" We are a nation of laws, and laws are what is written down. I am a textualist, not an originalist, and I believe that the text of the Constitution, including all the Amendments, should be the basis of Supreme Court decisions. If the text does not adequately solve a problem, be it in Constitution or statute, there are legally acceptable ways of changing it.

[New Georgia and the North Pacific]

My view is:
You’re anti-abortion? Don’t get one.
You’re a man? Your opinion doesn’t matter.
You’re a conservative? Solve the issues like school shootings first.
You’re an unborn baby? Speak up.

[Laasmistan]

My view is:
You’re anti-abortion? Don’t get one.
You’re a man? Your opinion doesn’t matter.
You’re a conservative? Solve the issues like school shootings first.
You’re an unborn baby? Speak up.

While I don't think the man's opinion should hold as much weight as the woman's, I wouldn't say their opinion doesn't matter at all. Men are the ones getting women pregnant. That's just basic biology.

[New Georgia and the North Pacific]

My view is:
You’re anti-abortion? Don’t get one.
You’re a man? Your opinion doesn’t matter.
You’re a conservative? Solve the issues like school shootings first.
You’re an unborn baby? Speak up.

While I don't think the man's opinion should hold as much weight as the woman's, I wouldn't say their opinion doesn't matter at all. Men are the ones getting women pregnant. That's just basic biology.

And the last time I checked, they aren’t the ones suffering the physical consequences. And the “but you’re a woman excuse” which many people tried to use on me elsewhere doesn’t work on a man.

[New Georgia and the North Pacific]

Isn’t it just wonderful, to have a place with proper welfare, and universal healthcare. And proper gun laws, and civil rights, and a women’s choice?

[Spirit of Hope]

The argument that "the state can take your rights away if it votes to take your rights away," is a terrible legal take and not what due process of the law is referring to. What it is referring to is that the state does have the power to take your rights away if it follows due process of the legal system, that is generally if you have been convicted of a crime. So the state can deprive you of your rights when you are imprisoned.

The federal government doesn't enforce on the states to not violate the rights, the federal judiciary does, a distinction that you don't appear to understand but an important one. The federal government, agencies headed by the president and given power by congress, has very little power to tell states to stop violating rights. Instead the federal judiciary is generally the people that are telling states, and the federal government, to stop violating peoples rights.

Now it is very true to say that the specific rights citizens have is not well laid out in the constitution, but that isn't a huge issue as long as you aren't an idiot who slavishly follows to what is written in the constitution (ignoring the 9th) and an a historical interpretation of what was acceptable at the time of the founding fathers. Aka the position of the federalist society, the organization who the Republican party has basically delegated the power of choosing justices to.

The case history of the right to an abortion in the US is robust (with two SCOTUS decisions upholding it building off of lower court decisions), up until a court filled with justices specifically chosen to strike it down was pushed into power. This court has been a disaster in other ways, but that is beyond the scope of this thread.

"What it is referring to is that the state does have the power to take your rights away if it follows due process of the legal system, that is generally if you have been convicted of a crime". But it is within the power of the state to determine what a crime is, within the confines of the Federal Constitution.

And part of the confines of the constitution is the fact that states can't make protected rights illegal.

"The federal government doesn't enforce on the states to not violate the rights, the federal judiciary does, a distinction that you don't appear to understand but an important one" The Federal government is composed of three branches, legislative, executive, and judiciary. The courts are a part of the government, not an entity standing outside of it.

Correct and not at the same time, it depends on the context in which you are speaking. When speaking about the powers of the federal government people are speaking about the executive and legislative, not the judiciary. This is because in the context of federal powers the judiciary largely is distinct and separate from the other two.

"Now it is very true to say that the specific rights citizens have is not well laid out in the constitution, but that isn't a huge issue as long as you aren't an idiot who slavishly follows to what is written in the constitution (ignoring the 9th)" We are a nation of laws, and laws are what is written down. I am a textualist, not an originalist, and I believe that the text of the Constitution, including all the Amendments, should be the basis of Supreme Court decisions. If the text does not adequately solve a problem, be it in Constitution or statute, there are legally acceptable ways of changing it.

So how do you square textualism with a part of the text literally saying not everything that is protected is written down?

[New Georgia and the North Pacific]

Frankly, isn’t America just so smart. Let’s politicise the legal system, nothing could go wrong. Not like a judicial coup could happen, not at all.

[Rusozak]

My view is:
You’re anti-abortion? Don’t get one.
You’re a man? Your opinion doesn’t matter.
You’re a conservative? Solve the issues like school shootings first.
You’re an unborn baby? Speak up.

While I don't think the man's opinion should hold as much weight as the woman's, I wouldn't say their opinion doesn't matter at all. Men are the ones getting women pregnant. That's just basic biology.

It does give me an idea though. Start going after the fathers of aborted children and see how many Republican lawmakers suddenly shut up about the issue.

[New haven america]

My view is:
You’re anti-abortion? Don’t get one.
You’re a man? Your opinion doesn’t matter.
You’re a conservative? Solve the issues like school shootings first.
You’re an unborn baby? Speak up.

So you approve of paper abortions for men.

[Laasmistan]

While I don't think the man's opinion should hold as much weight as the woman's, I wouldn't say their opinion doesn't matter at all. Men are the ones getting women pregnant. That's just basic biology.

It does give me an idea though. Start going after the fathers of aborted children and see how many Republican lawmakers suddenly shut up about the issue.

They probably would because they're hypocrites.

[New Georgia and the North Pacific]

While I don't think the man's opinion should hold as much weight as the woman's, I wouldn't say their opinion doesn't matter at all. Men are the ones getting women pregnant. That's just basic biology.

It does give me an idea though. Start going after the fathers of aborted children and see how many Republican lawmakers suddenly shut up about the issue.

Case and point: Herschel Walker.
You know the old joke. In America you have a Far-Right party, then you have the Republicans

[New Georgia and the North Pacific]

My view is:
You’re anti-abortion? Don’t get one.
You’re a man? Your opinion doesn’t matter.
You’re a conservative? Solve the issues like school shootings first.
You’re an unborn baby? Speak up.

So you approve of paper abortions for men.

My point is simple. Not your body, not your business.

[New haven america]

So you approve of paper abortions for men.

My point is simple. Not your body, not your business.

So you approve of paper abortions for men.

[New Georgia and the North Pacific]

My point is simple. Not your body, not your business.

So you approve of paper abortions for men.

Yes and no. You basically disown/divorce your wife and kids. The state steps in here in the UK. Also, the main thing I point out is that the woman suffers the consequences. Not the man. I mean physically of course.