Skip to content
Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Yahoo)   Why stop at leaving abortion rights at the state level? Why not counties or cities decide? Why not neighborhoods? In fact, why not let individual women...oh wait   (news.yahoo.com) divider line
    More: Obvious, Roe v. Wade, abortionmeasure, state ballot, abortion rights, Abortion, Supreme Court of the United States, Abortion debate, Abortion law  
•       •       •

3202 clicks; posted to Politics » on 10 Aug 2022 at 3:35 PM (7 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



83 Comments     (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2022-08-10 1:20:40 PM  
Nice work subby
 
2022-08-10 2:07:29 PM  

AlgaeRancher: Nice work subby


I hope he gave The Daily Show royalties

Trump Had COVID at Debate, CNN Suspends Chris Cuomo & SCOTUS Takes On Abortion | The Daily Show
Youtube 9wEXZSZPav4
 
2022-08-10 2:17:04 PM  
I'm just here to upvote this, since subby probably can't hear me laughing all the way from Estonia.
 
2022-08-10 3:38:23 PM  
Women are too hysterical to make decisions about their own bodies, subby. Next you'll want them to be able to apply for loans without a man's permission. Or vote. Then where will we be as a society? Who will make my sandwiches then? HM?!
 
2022-08-10 3:39:34 PM  
external-preview.redd.itView Full Size
 
2022-08-10 3:40:05 PM  
i.kym-cdn.comView Full Size



/great headline subby, are you single?
//also, which gender?
///ya know, it doesn't matter. let's bang
 
2022-08-10 3:41:28 PM  
No, no, no. You can't leave it to all the states, some of them might make the wrong decision. It needs to be left to only properly pious states.

You know what? Those states get their marching orders directly from extremist evangelical churches, best to just leave the decision to God himself, whose official word will be relayed to the masses by those favored with the most donations.
 
2022-08-10 3:42:02 PM  
Republicans the party of small government, small enough to fit inside a vagina.

/Obviously not your mom's vagina
//hot dog down a hallway
///if the hallway is the Grand Canyon
 
2022-08-10 3:42:33 PM  
And this is why you'll never see any abortion referendum appear in any red state, ever again.  Can't have those ignorant peons choosing things they want.

/And golf clap for subby
 
2022-08-10 3:42:47 PM  
I'm pregnant with Subby's baby!
 
2022-08-10 3:43:16 PM  
Because the cities and counties might do something to deviate from Republican orthodoxy and so the state needs to keep those filthy lib cities in line.
 
2022-08-10 3:43:59 PM  

Isitoveryet: I'm pregnant with Subby's baby!


Is it an anus babby?
How formed?
 
2022-08-10 3:44:49 PM  
I have no problem with states deciding, as long as it's STATES - as in THE PEOPLE OF THAT STATE - and not some gerrymandered bible-thumping morons in public office.
When the anti-choice dickheads whined that they wanted "the states" to decide they did not mean THE PEOPLE, but their politicians they could control.

Set it up like... KANSAS, where there would be a state-wide referendum to put or keep protections for reproductive freedom and choice in the state's constitution. Let the people decide. Guaranteed there would only be a handful of the people of every state that would not want that.

Watch the thumpers shat themselves.
 
2022-08-10 3:45:17 PM  
It all depends on what level of government can Republicans best use control others. With some things like xenophobia federal control is needed, with thins like abortion state control seems to work best, and some requires local control like seizing local school boards to ensure the indoctrination of the children. Anytime the GOP supports a certain level of government control, it if fluid depending on which rights they want to take away, and which level of government would most efficiently using it to oppress the "undesirables".
 
2022-08-10 3:46:47 PM  
the medical care a pregnant person decides upon is best left between them and their doctor and their Aunt Nunya
 
2022-08-10 3:48:05 PM  
Because STATE'S RIGHTS subby. Don't you know anything about the Constitution???
 
2022-08-10 3:49:36 PM  

HighOnCraic: I'm just here to upvote this, since subby probably can't hear me laughing all the way from Estonia.


You made the move? Good for you!
 
2022-08-10 3:50:40 PM  
Pump your brakes, subby...we can't let women decide what to do with their own bodies.  That's for conservatives to dictate.
 
2022-08-10 3:51:13 PM  

rewind2846: I have no problem with states deciding


I have a problem with letting states decide
 
2022-08-10 3:52:17 PM  
Bodily autonomy is a fundamental human right and without it women are not free. We are slaves to the government, men who impregnate us, and even the fetuses. There are ten thousand reasons why getting an abortion is absolutely necessary and not one of them is any of the governments business, nor any one else who the woman does not wish to include in her private biological affairs.

Bodily autonomy needs to be protected on a national level the same way we refused to let slavery continue in the southern states. It is absolutely worth going to war over. It is not a right that should be able to be taken by any state or any other government entity.
 
2022-08-10 3:52:42 PM  

HighOnCraic: I'm just here to upvote this, since subby probably can't hear me laughing all the way from Estonia.


Oh that's what that noise is
 
2022-08-10 3:55:07 PM  

rewind2846: I have no problem with states deciding, as long as it's STATES - as in THE PEOPLE OF THAT STATE - and not some gerrymandered bible-thumping morons in public office.
When the anti-choice dickheads whined that they wanted "the states" to decide they did not mean THE PEOPLE, but their politicians they could control.

Set it up like... KANSAS, where there would be a state-wide referendum to put or keep protections for reproductive freedom and choice in the state's constitution. Let the people decide. Guaranteed there would only be a handful of the people of every state that would not want that.

Watch the thumpers shat themselves.


I have a problem with states deciding.

This is a human rights issue.  The gap between supporting an abortion ban and supporting legal "female circumcision" isn't that far apart.  Women will die or have their lives serverely and negatively changed in both cases.   It's fun to pretend that democracy is a cure all, some things however should be entrenched in the very fabric of any free society.

This is one of those things.
 
2022-08-10 3:55:21 PM  

Smosh: rewind2846: I have no problem with states deciding

I have a problem with letting states decide


Yep. It just boggles the mind that we allow human rights to be decided by popular vote.
 
2022-08-10 3:55:50 PM  
It's a great question.  The whole point here is that the fetus is a human life, entitled to protection.  It's a human life in New Mexico or Kansas just as much as it is in Texas, right?  So why is the fetus' life entitled to less protection depending on what state it happens to be conceived in, depending solely on the whim of the voters in that state?

I don't think enough criticism has been leveled at how inapposite this "states rights" idea is when applied to abortion rights.  It really makes no sense at all.  This is one of those issues that needs to be decided at the national level: either fetuses are beings accorded constitutional protection, or they aren't.  There is no logical middle ground here that the good people of Kentucky or Kansas can decide on their own one way or the other.
 
2022-08-10 3:57:15 PM  
If we cannot force a corpse to give up its organs to save a life, then it's absolutely ridiculous to suggest people with uteruses do so.
 
2022-08-10 3:58:12 PM  
Read your Alito and Thomas.

It's not about women's rights. It's about breeding out the icky minorities in society.
 
2022-08-10 3:58:17 PM  

Mercutio74: rewind2846: I have no problem with states deciding, as long as it's STATES - as in THE PEOPLE OF THAT STATE - and not some gerrymandered bible-thumping morons in public office.
When the anti-choice dickheads whined that they wanted "the states" to decide they did not mean THE PEOPLE, but their politicians they could control.

Set it up like... KANSAS, where there would be a state-wide referendum to put or keep protections for reproductive freedom and choice in the state's constitution. Let the people decide. Guaranteed there would only be a handful of the people of every state that would not want that.

Watch the thumpers shat themselves.

I have a problem with states deciding.

This is a human rights issue.  The gap between supporting an abortion ban and supporting legal "female circumcision" isn't that far apart.  Women will die or have their lives serverely and negatively changed in both cases.   It's fun to pretend that democracy is a cure all, some things however should be entrenched in the very fabric of any free society.

This is one of those things.


Then we have a problem. Rights only exist inasmuch as people are willing to defend them in an organized manner. How do you propose we organize defense of reproductive rights if not for through states?
 
2022-08-10 3:59:16 PM  

Peki: If we cannot force a corpse to give up its organs to save a life, then it's absolutely ridiculous to suggest people with uteruses do so.


There are actually a few countries with opt out organ donation laws rather than opt in.

It's how it should be here.  This shouldn't be a conversation forced to emotional, grieving families at end of life.
 
2022-08-10 4:01:39 PM  
Didn't Michelle Wolf or somebody tweet that after the SCOTUS flushed all it's credibility down the toilet?
 
2022-08-10 4:02:28 PM  

Serious Black: Mercutio74: rewind2846: I have no problem with states deciding, as long as it's STATES - as in THE PEOPLE OF THAT STATE - and not some gerrymandered bible-thumping morons in public office.
When the anti-choice dickheads whined that they wanted "the states" to decide they did not mean THE PEOPLE, but their politicians they could control.

Set it up like... KANSAS, where there would be a state-wide referendum to put or keep protections for reproductive freedom and choice in the state's constitution. Let the people decide. Guaranteed there would only be a handful of the people of every state that would not want that.

Watch the thumpers shat themselves.

I have a problem with states deciding.

This is a human rights issue.  The gap between supporting an abortion ban and supporting legal "female circumcision" isn't that far apart.  Women will die or have their lives serverely and negatively changed in both cases.   It's fun to pretend that democracy is a cure all, some things however should be entrenched in the very fabric of any free society.

This is one of those things.

Then we have a problem. Rights only exist inasmuch as people are willing to defend them in an organized manner. How do you propose we organize defense of reproductive rights if not for through states?


By not being a garbage nation run by intractably corrupt and evil people.  Most other developed nations manage this simple task.

Much like Trump, this awful SCOTUS decision and the Republican actions surrounding it aren't the problem.  They're a symptom of the US circling the drain as a functional "free" nation with democratic principles.

I don't have your solution because fixing involves undoing decades of what caused this to come to pass.
 
2022-08-10 4:05:23 PM  

hardinparamedic: Read your Alito and Thomas.

It's not about women's rights. It's about breeding out the icky minorities in society.


Correct! Which is hard to understand coming from an Asian-American and an African-American.

The *entire goal* of the Christian Right is to return us to feudalism. Rich White Men in charge, and everyone else is a peasant.  A *white* peasant. That's where the anti-abortion stuff really comes into play. They are tired of black and hispanics making all the peasants. They want *white* peasants. So they can rape their daughters.
 
2022-08-10 4:07:04 PM  

realmolo: hardinparamedic: Read your Alito and Thomas.

It's not about women's rights. It's about breeding out the icky minorities in society.

Correct! Which is hard to understand coming from an Asian-American and an African-American.

The *entire goal* of the Christian Right is to return us to feudalism. Rich White Men in charge, and everyone else is a peasant.  A *white* peasant. That's where the anti-abortion stuff really comes into play. They are tired of black and hispanics making all the peasants. They want *white* peasants. So they can rape their daughters.


It's all religious fundamentalism. They don't view it as breeding a white ethnostate like others around them do. They view it as breeding an army for Armageddon in service to Christ.
 
2022-08-10 4:08:10 PM  
I never see young child bearing age women protesting outside of the center I drive by on the way to work and to shop. It is always elderly people and middle aged men. Admittedly, it could be a regional thing, but there are no young men and no women in the the child bearing years protesting the medical center from what I have seen.
 
2022-08-10 4:08:38 PM  

Mercutio74: I have a problem with states deciding.


Yeah, yeah I get it. It should be a human rights decision. Here in the real world unfortunately it doesn't work like that, at least in 'murica. That's why the Kansas decision is so important... the logical legal compromise. The people of that state decided that it was a human rights issue, that it's a private issue, and that it should be law.

We should never have had to deal with a Civil rights Act, a Voting Rights Act, the Equal Rights Amendment, the ADA, the Fair Housing Act, Obergefell or the 13th, 14th, 15th or 19th amendments to the US constitution. But here we are. If left to the people the Kansas decision will likely be replicated in every state, at least putting that shat to rest.
 
2022-08-10 4:08:47 PM  

i state your name: Republicans the party of small government, small enough to fit inside a vagina.

/Obviously not your mom's vagina
//hot dog down a hallway
///if the hallway is the Grand Canyon


Even though retired (and possibly dead of old age), Christy Canyon approves of your example.  Is there an echo in here?
 
2022-08-10 4:11:30 PM  

i state your name: Republicans the party of small government, small enough to fit inside a vagina.

/Obviously not your mom's vagina
//hot dog down a hallway
///if the hallway is the Grand Canyon


Vaginas do not work that way.

i.imgflip.comView Full Size
 
2022-08-10 4:11:48 PM  
Again, there are no such thing as "states' rights". There are only "state-granted privileges". Or in most cases "state-restricted privileges". An actual right has to be universal, and not subject to the whims of the government or people.
 
2022-08-10 4:12:10 PM  

clborgia: I never see young child bearing age women protesting outside of the center I drive by on the way to work and to shop. It is always elderly people and middle aged men. Admittedly, it could be a regional thing, but there are no young men and no women in the the child bearing years protesting the medical center from what I have seen.


Cause they have jobs.
 
2022-08-10 4:13:13 PM  

clborgia: I never see young child bearing age women protesting outside of the center I drive by on the way to work and to shop. It is always elderly people and middle aged men. Admittedly, it could be a regional thing, but there are no young men and no women in the the child bearing years protesting the medical center from what I have seen.


Here it is always creepy pasty dudes in their 50s who look like they've never so much as touched a woman, other the ones in their freezer.
 
2022-08-10 4:13:44 PM  

blondambition: i state your name: Republicans the party of small government, small enough to fit inside a vagina.

/Obviously not your mom's vagina
//hot dog down a hallway
///if the hallway is the Grand Canyon

Vaginas do not work that way.

[i.imgflip.com image 555x320]


Is it ironic that Morbo is telling a woman how vaginas work, or is he just a Republican?
 
2022-08-10 4:15:41 PM  
Fark user imageView Full Size

one of the 2yr old comments on the gocomics page: "This didn't age well."
 
2022-08-10 4:16:30 PM  

ace in your face: Bodily autonomy is a fundamental human right and without it women are not free. We are slaves to the government, men who impregnate us, and even the fetuses. There are ten thousand reasons why getting an abortion is absolutely necessary and not one of them is any of the governments business, nor any one else who the woman does not wish to include in her private biological affairs.

Bodily autonomy needs to be protected on a national level the same way we refused to let slavery continue in the southern states. It is absolutely worth going to war over. It is not a right that should be able to be taken by any state or any other government entity.


Yup...it's pretty farking simple when you take all the bullshiat out of the "debate".  Everyone should get to decide what happens within their own body, and they shouldn't need to justify it to anyone.  No one is saying that you have to agree with the choices that others make with their own bodies, but you sure as shiat can't DENY them those choices.
 
2022-08-10 4:16:46 PM  

Mercutio74: Serious Black: Mercutio74: rewind2846: I have no problem with states deciding, as long as it's STATES - as in THE PEOPLE OF THAT STATE - and not some gerrymandered bible-thumping morons in public office.
When the anti-choice dickheads whined that they wanted "the states" to decide they did not mean THE PEOPLE, but their politicians they could control.

Set it up like... KANSAS, where there would be a state-wide referendum to put or keep protections for reproductive freedom and choice in the state's constitution. Let the people decide. Guaranteed there would only be a handful of the people of every state that would not want that.

Watch the thumpers shat themselves.

I have a problem with states deciding.

This is a human rights issue.  The gap between supporting an abortion ban and supporting legal "female circumcision" isn't that far apart.  Women will die or have their lives serverely and negatively changed in both cases.   It's fun to pretend that democracy is a cure all, some things however should be entrenched in the very fabric of any free society.

This is one of those things.

Then we have a problem. Rights only exist inasmuch as people are willing to defend them in an organized manner. How do you propose we organize defense of reproductive rights if not for through states?

By not being a garbage nation run by intractably corrupt and evil people.  Most other developed nations manage this simple task.

Much like Trump, this awful SCOTUS decision and the Republican actions surrounding it aren't the problem.  They're a symptom of the US circling the drain as a functional "free" nation with democratic principles.

I don't have your solution because fixing involves undoing decades of what caused this to come to pass.


I wish I knew how to ensure this as well. I hate feeling so despondent about the state of our politics.
 
2022-08-10 4:17:09 PM  

rewind2846: Mercutio74: I have a problem with states deciding.

Yeah, yeah I get it. It should be a human rights decision. Here in the real world unfortunately it doesn't work like that, at least in 'murica. That's why the Kansas decision is so important... the logical legal compromise. The people of that state decided that it was a human rights issue, that it's a private issue, and that it should be law.

We should never have had to deal with a Civil rights Act, a Voting Rights Act, the Equal Rights Amendment, the ADA, the Fair Housing Act, Obergefell or the 13th, 14th, 15th or 19th amendments to the US constitution. But here we are. If left to the people the Kansas decision will likely be replicated in every state, at least putting that shat to rest.


If you really think the Kansas decision was final, you don't understand how the forced-birth people work. They'll keep trying until they win, and then make sure that no one can ever change that decision.
 
2022-08-10 4:18:04 PM  

rewind2846: Mercutio74: I have a problem with states deciding.

Yeah, yeah I get it. It should be a human rights decision. Here in the real world unfortunately it doesn't work like that, at least in 'murica. That's why the Kansas decision is so important... the logical legal compromise. The people of that state decided that it was a human rights issue, that it's a private issue, and that it should be law.

We should never have had to deal with a Civil rights Act, a Voting Rights Act, the Equal Rights Amendment, the ADA, the Fair Housing Act, Obergefell or the 13th, 14th, 15th or 19th amendments to the US constitution. But here we are. If left to the people the Kansas decision will likely be replicated in every state, at least putting that shat to rest.


A problem with letting states decide about women's choice is that in red states, voting districts are seriously gerrymandered and those legislatures won't allow choice to be brought to a vote of the people.  Or, if it is brought to a vote, the gerrymandered legislature will do everything in their power to overturn the will of the people.  Missouri is a example of the legislature overturning the voted will of the people.  They overturned a ballot issue banning puppy mills for crying out loud.  This will never get resolved until the biggest part of the plan is to let each individual woman make her own decisions about it.  Each woman gets to make her own decision.  Men should support this without reservation.
 
2022-08-10 4:20:10 PM  
We're finally now doing what should have happened 50 years ago, debating and legislating in the states over the issue.
 
2022-08-10 4:22:08 PM  
i.imgflip.comView Full Size
 
2022-08-10 4:23:01 PM  

jjorsett: We're finally now doing what should have happened 50 years ago, debating and legislating in the states over the issue.


WRONG!

Civil rights should NOT be a "states" issue.
 
2022-08-10 4:23:11 PM  

Serious Black: Mercutio74: Serious Black: Mercutio74: rewind2846: I have no problem with states deciding, as long as it's STATES - as in THE PEOPLE OF THAT STATE - and not some gerrymandered bible-thumping morons in public office.
When the anti-choice dickheads whined that they wanted "the states" to decide they did not mean THE PEOPLE, but their politicians they could control.

Set it up like... KANSAS, where there would be a state-wide referendum to put or keep protections for reproductive freedom and choice in the state's constitution. Let the people decide. Guaranteed there would only be a handful of the people of every state that would not want that.

Watch the thumpers shat themselves.

I have a problem with states deciding.

This is a human rights issue.  The gap between supporting an abortion ban and supporting legal "female circumcision" isn't that far apart.  Women will die or have their lives serverely and negatively changed in both cases.   It's fun to pretend that democracy is a cure all, some things however should be entrenched in the very fabric of any free society.

This is one of those things.

Then we have a problem. Rights only exist inasmuch as people are willing to defend them in an organized manner. How do you propose we organize defense of reproductive rights if not for through states?

By not being a garbage nation run by intractably corrupt and evil people.  Most other developed nations manage this simple task.

Much like Trump, this awful SCOTUS decision and the Republican actions surrounding it aren't the problem.  They're a symptom of the US circling the drain as a functional "free" nation with democratic principles.

I don't have your solution because fixing involves undoing decades of what caused this to come to pass.

I wish I knew how to ensure this as well. I hate feeling so despondent about the state of our politics.


The first step is having higher requirements than age and residency in order to run for office. The second step is to get rid of all the barriers to politicians actually representing the people, instead of special interests. This includes voting reform, like getting rid of the EC, Senate, and gerrymandering; and campaign finance reform.
 
2022-08-10 4:24:15 PM  

jjorsett: We're finally now doing what should have happened 50 years ago, debating and legislating in the states over the issue.


Women's rights shouldn't be up for debate, and shouldn't change depending on which state they live in.
 
Displayed 50 of 83 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.