Roe Comment Cartoon

Eh.... I don't know. Is that VOICE in the cartoon? CHIP?

It would be kind of funny to draw what I think certain people look like and vice versa, since we've never seen each other. I picture some of you daily dozen commenters in pretty interesting fashion!

I think it's a healthy combination of all men on either side commenting on women's issues, on edhat and beyond.

11:25 - True, but should men not have any say in the recent reversal of law? Taking away women's right to choose should be an outrage to us all, men and women.

@Jon - I interpreted it as more men discussing a woman's bodily autonomy.

The body autonomy claim has been incredibly cheapened when they made an exception to 'total control over what happens to our own bodies' when vax mandates came out. (and are still out there FYI).

Thanks for your male input Voice (aka 11:44). Perhaps the cartoon was directed at you specifically?

And forcing a woman/birthing body to give birth is NOT the same thing as not being allowed to dine inside at a restaurant. Get real.

VOICE at 11:44 (too scared to speak up) - "claim has been incredibly cheapened" - only for those who think pregnancy is contagious and capable of killing those around you.

I think you should express the ideas you have about others in caricature form. Then we can discuss whether they turn out to be the end product of a bigoted, misogynistic, misandrist, racist mind or not.

@12:03, so you agree there are exceptions to total body autonomy. Now, who gets to decide when to make those exceptions, the government? The consensus around this issue here seems to be very loud and clear NO - the government shouldn't be the ones deciding when we can and can't have autonomy over our bodies. Is pregnancy contagious? No. Does the vax prevent you from being contagious? Also no.

1:26 (Again VOICE) - No, no exceptions. The vax mandates didn't call for felony charges for failing to get vaxxed.

And while the vax didn't cure it or provide 100% prevention from being contagious, the purpose of the vax mandates were to prevent the spread of a deadly virus. Not the same as imprisoning a woman and her doctor for making a choice about her body.

VOICE - and further, if you keep insisting on "my body, my choice" why do you support allowing the states to ban a woman from making her choice? You keep saying we can't have it both ways, so why do you think you can? "Rules for thee......"

"No, no exceptions"..... then you go on to list two exceptions. So you'd be okay with this if violating abortion law carried the same consequences as not getting vaxed - i.e. no felony but you lose your job, expelled from University, not allowed entry to restaurants or events, travel restrictions, etc? No, you wouldn't. We either have total autonomy over our bodies or we don't, and if we don't, who gets to decide when we don't? Politicians? An unelected bureaucrat at the public health department? OR should it be the people that decide?

VOICE - You still willfully miss the point. Vax mandates didn't call for felony imprisonment, abortion bans do. There is NO alternative for abortions, there was for the vax - get tested and show proof. Therefore, they are NOT the same.

Nothing you say will change the facts. Your emotion-based opinions miss the facts. I'm done.

3:42, LOL, yeah, to being able to attend a sporting event or eat in a restaurant is EXACTLY LIKE BEING CHARGED WITH CONSPIRACY, MURDER, ETC.

And you may not be aware of this, but abortion isn't contagious. A woman having an abortion doesn't put other women who CHOOSE not to have an abortion in danger of an abortion.

Unlike Covid 19.

Your comparison is asinine.

Both of you misread my comment and neither of you even tried to answer the question: Who decides when we have autonomy over our body and when we don't? You've give your reasons why you think we shouldn't have autonomy over our personal vaccine decisions, so is it the public health department that determines when we do and don't have autonomy over our bodies? If they said no abortions, would you comply? I think most are in agreement late-term abortions should be done rarely and in very specific and unique circumstances, but specifically when is late-term, who decides? If not the public health department, a panel of judges, politicians? OR (as I stated earlier) should it be the people that decide?

@3:53 "NO alternative" ? now you're not even being honest with yourself.

"Who decides when we have autonomy over our body and when we don't?" - Not people who have ZERO personal interest or suffer ZERO impact from the thing they're outlawing.

5:32 VOICE, dang dude.... you really don't think before typing, do you? When it's life or death, there is no alternative. Do you even know or care to consider the reasons for an abortion? What a totally insensitive and thoughtless comment.

Sac @ 6:21 ""Who decides when we have autonomy over our body and when we don't?" - Not people who have ZERO personal interest or suffer ZERO impact from the thing they're outlawing."

So, it's your wife , girlfriend or other and they get prego... If you're male, you have ZERO say as to what they do. Just sayn'! As you know I'm pro RvW, autonamoy over your own body bla bla bla, Anti-abortion.

9:16- Blasting dudes half hour posting for not responding? Ummm maybe they have jobs? I know, weird concept.

OGSB - "So, it's your wife , girlfriend or other and they get prego... If you're male, you have ZERO say as to what they do" ------ Bingo! That's exactly correct. Are you honestly disputing that?

Sac 8:05- Seriously Bro? Go ahead and read what you said in the quotes and base my comment on that. To your current troll, Yeah I'm a grown-up and understand how the world works.

OGSB - uh, not sure what you're trying to say? What's your point? Those are YOUR words. Glad you're "grown up" but try being coherent.

Yeah, "they" -- women -- made an exception and passed draconian laws to force people to wear masks and so they should stop bitching about forced birth, says VoiceOfMisogynyandDishonesty

I think the problem with some people (like VOR) is the black white issue. "Either you have full bodily autonomy or you don't." Yeah, no. There are shades of gray.

Life isn't black and white, it's messy and shades of gray.

Being arrested and charged with murder, as others have said, is not the same as getting fired.

People with uteruses do not have to know everything about Roe vs. Wade to understand and know that nobody else should control what goes on in my uterus.

I don't care if it's Roe v. Wade or a newly passed federal law that overrides the states allowing abortion everywhere. Whatever works.

"People with uteruses do not have to know everything about Roe vs. Wade to understand and know that nobody else should control what goes on in my uterus."
OK. Then you would have been opposed to Congress and/or the State of CA controlling your uterus somewhat over the last decades?
Because right now the State of CA has restrictions on Abortion after viability and under certain circumstances, so help educate me. Have you been OK with a CA Democrat super majority keeping some restrictions on your uterus?
Would you want to go to a national law that allows on demand abortions, up to 9 months, no questions asked, no rules about Doctors or clincs vs hospitals. 100% taxpayer funded etc? That's a state control of your uterus that you may like?
That is where I'd become involved, not on purpose or actively, but then I'd be asked to participate financially in peoples uterus based decisions. Taxpayers are allowed to have a voice in the US, the country was founded on it.
Lets say I'm just an old cheapskate curmudgeon. I'm OK with paying for abortion because of rape, incest, medical need, under 18, poverty level. OK with birth control over the counter on demand, morning after pill on demand after initial doctor vist etc. But think that if two healthy, working adults decide not to control what goes on in the uterus, then they should not expect me to pay to control their uterus problem.
Maybe I also feel that the Sisters of the Poor Mercy Hospital should not be compelled/controlled by the state to control what is going on in in someones uterus.

I'd say is safe to assume anyone getting defensive over this cartoon identifies as a man.

As recently as last week men could have uteruses, periods and could get pregnant. Seems everyone remembered what a women is real fast.

@11:42, you're conflating two issues but I'm sure if someone used "birthing bodies" instead of woman you'd find issue with that too.

More like a commentary on misogny and mansplaining.

For the folks with room temperature IQs: cartoon != comedy

House and Senate are run by Republican? What decade are you in because today Democrats control the House, Senate and WH.

c'mon. The house isn't. Dem party is too weak to get rid of the filibuster. It's just so much more complex than what you wrote!

BOOMER - so how would you feel about the 2nd Amendment being put "back in the hands of the people" (ie, State's rights)?

*"in the hands of the people" - not "back"

That would require an amendment to the constitution Sac, it isn’t something that the States or SCOTUS can take away. With each post you make it more and more clear you don't know how our government is supposed to work. If you really want to effect change you need to understand how it works. Too many are getting blindly outraged by what they see on the news (the for profit media wants you outraged) or a politicians rhetoric (who also wants you outraged right before they ask you to donate to their campaign and vote for them). As I’ve written below and Boomer reflected above, the power lies with the people, not the government or any of it’s branches. We should not be relying upon a politically biased court of unelected members, or any other gov. agency, to provide or take away rights we feel are important to us.

VOICE - you never answered my question though (surprise surprise). You just went "anonymous" and fled. Here it is again for you:

How do you consider yourself "pro-choice" while at the same time supporting the State's right to ban/outlaw abortion for everyone in that state, regardless of how they voted?

Honestly interested to hear you do a little self reflecting on that. So many conservatives say they're "pro-choice" and then say that choice should be left to the people through voting. How does that work?

VOICE - OBVIOUSLY, it was a hypothetical, but the point is the same. Why should SCOTUS uphold rights that half of us don't want? <---- that is the point.

Stop being such a coward and use your name. We all know it's you.

Hold on, let me re-phrase that.

BOOMER says SCOTUS should not be able to "force their policies on the rest of us." OK, so that means they shouldn't be used as tool for conservatives either. <---BOOMER's hypocrisy is glaring.