Liberals On Abortion

[gipper]

Celebrating mass murder, yet Americans think themselves better than the Nazis.

You mean like the invasion of Iraq?

You mean taking out a dictator that would put people in a meat grinder feet first for entertainment?

The US army killed way more Iraqis than Saddam ever did. Not even close.

Agreed. Now how did this fact have anything to do with this thread topic?

What are you? The topic police? We're comparing mass murder. Isn't that what you call abortion?

So then, you were attempting to minimize the 60 million babies massacred in the womb. Why?

 

[Cecilie1200]

To those Leftists who say (as did WJC) that abortion should be "safe, legal, and rare," a challenge:

Why should you care if it is RARE? Seriously.

If it is merely removal of unwanted tissue, then what is the benefit - why is it "better" if abortions are rare...if not that there is something morally odious about abortion.

Why do you believe that abortion should be rare?

I keep asking that myself. They're apparently so used to the cognitive dissonance, they don't even understand the question.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Still waiting for one of you leftist lackwits to explain to me why it should be "rare".

Why it should be rare? That needs explaining?

Coming from someone who also thinks it should be virtually unrestricted? Yes. I know why I think it should be rare, but I can't imagine why YOU would think that.

I actually understand that my goals and the goals of the anti choice assholes are aligned. It’s in how we reduce unwanted pregnancies and unnecessary abortions that we diverge. A self centered bitchtress wouldn’t understand so I can see where you don’t get that.

Now that you're done blowing smoke up your own ass about how you REALLY have a right to feel good about yourself as a person - No, REALLY - perhaps you could get back to the topic and say something that might matter. Cause Seabiscuit, the disapproval of "people" I wouldn't piss on if they were on fire doesn't qualify.

I've been on topic the entire time miss "see you next tuesday", while you've only made ad hominem attacks. I want to see abortions kept safe and legal while we use science, education and smart government to actually reduce the number of them.

Teen pregnancy and abortion rates see big drops, which Colorado officials attribute to IUD program

Now what's your idea your twatness?

You're still lecturing about what you WISH I was asking, and avoiding the question, Seabiscuit. I can only assume it's because you know your position is bad, but you're too selfish to want that to matter.

If you think there's nothing wrong with abortion, such that it should be legal, then why would you care if it was "rare" or not? And if you think it's something undesirable enough to want it to be "rare", why would you champion it being legally unrestricted?

Spare me the justifications and rationalizations, because I doubt they're convincing either one of us that you're a decent person. Just answer the question . . . or dodge it again, at which point I will take that as an admission that you're evil and don't care. Whichever.

 

[Taz]

You mean like the invasion of Iraq?

You mean taking out a dictator that would put people in a meat grinder feet first for entertainment?

The US army killed way more Iraqis than Saddam ever did. Not even close.

Agreed. Now how did this fact have anything to do with this thread topic?

What are you? The topic police? We're comparing mass murder. Isn't that what you call abortion?

So then, you were attempting to minimize the 60 million babies massacred in the womb. Why?

Because it drives you nuts. And you can't do anything about it.

 

[Cecilie1200]

To those Leftists who say (as did WJC) that abortion should be "safe, legal, and rare," a challenge:

Why should you care if it is RARE? Seriously.

If it is merely removal of unwanted tissue, then what is the benefit - why is it "better" if abortions are rare...if not that there is something morally odious about abortion.

Why do you believe that abortion should be rare?

I see the abortion issue the same way I see suicide. It's tragic. I want it to be rare. But making it illegal does more harm than good.

Except that, in a manner of speaking, suicide IS illegal. Or, I guess, ATTEMPTED suicide is, since if you succeed, there isn't anything they can do about it. Every state handles it differently, but I believe they will all take some sort of action such as committing you to a mental health facility for observation and treatment.

 

[dblack]

To those Leftists who say (as did WJC) that abortion should be "safe, legal, and rare," a challenge:

Why should you care if it is RARE? Seriously.

If it is merely removal of unwanted tissue, then what is the benefit - why is it "better" if abortions are rare...if not that there is something morally odious about abortion.

Why do you believe that abortion should be rare?

I see the abortion issue the same way I see suicide. It's tragic. I want it to be rare. But making it illegal does more harm than good.

Except that, in a manner of speaking, suicide IS illegal. Or, I guess, ATTEMPTED suicide is, since if you succeed, there isn't anything they can do about it. Every state handles it differently, but I believe they will all take some sort of action such as committing you to a mental health facility for observation and treatment.

That's pretty rare these days. Most states have come to realize it was a mistake and repealed such laws.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Not real Liberals, as the author of the OP, but today's Liberals:


"Teen Vogue tells teenage girls how to get an abortion without their parents’ knowledge"
“It’s only logical that if teens are mature enough to become parents, they are mature enough to decide whether or not they want to give birth,” Aronowitz said. “Having access to abortion should be your right, regardless of your parents’ beliefs.”
Teen Vogue tells teenage girls how to get an abortion without their parents’ knowledge



Recall Democrats claiming that the law should be changed to give 16 yr olds the vote, too?

 

[Cecilie1200]

I mean real Liberals, those with integrity and a reputable view of the world, not the mind numbed variety that adhere to the Democrats no matter how insane their current agenda is.




1.Perhaps you’ve noticed that today the strongest Liberals/Democrats are those with the least ability to analyze what they are supporting. As a result, just as Orwell predicted in 1984, they can’t keep straight whether they are at war with Eastasia, or Eurasia. They need not keep track, they simply agree that the enemy at the moment is whoever the leadership says it is.
And today it is the unborn.

Hence, the Liberals were against gay marriage before they were for it. They opposed socialism before they were for it. And they opposed nuclear weapons for Iran before they were in favor of it.
So, no big deal to want to exterminate the defenseless.....

They are clueless to 180° turns by the party. Morons simply march lock-step via the party’s orders.





I came across an interesting real-Liberal essay opposing abortion, and it is instructive to peruse.


2.“Abortion: The Left has betrayed the sanctity of life From The Progressive magazine. Abortion: The Left has betrayed the sanctity of life
Consistency demands concern for the unborn

The abortion issue, more than most, illustrates the occasional tendency of the Left to become so enthusiastic over what is called a "reform" that it forgets to think the issue through. It is ironic that so many on the Left have done on abortion what the conservatives and Cold War liberals did on Vietnam: They marched off in the wrong direction, to fight the wrong war, against the wrong people.

3. Some of us … are now active in the right-to-life movement. We do not enjoy opposing our old friends on the abortion issue, but we feel that we have no choice. We are moved by what pro-life feminists call the "consistency thing" -- the belief that respect for human life demands opposition to abortion, capital punishment, euthanasia, and war. We don't think we have either the luxury or the right to choose some types of killing and say that they are all right, while others are not. A human life is a human life; and if equality means anything, it means that society may not value some human lives over others.




4. Until the last decade, people on the Left and Right generally agreed on one rule: We all protected the young. This was not merely agreement on an ethical question: It was also an expression of instinct, so deep and ancient that it scarcely required explanation. Protection of the young included protection of the unborn, for abortion was forbidden by state laws throughout the United States. Those laws reflected an ethical consensus, not based solely on religious tradition but also on scientific evidence that human life begins at conception. The prohibition of abortion in the ancient Hippocratic Oath is well known.

5. …it is important to ask why the Left in the United States generally accepted legalized abortion. One factor was the popular civil libertarian rationale for freedom of choice in abortion. Many feminists presented it as a right of women to control their own bodies. When the objection was raised that abortion ruins another person's body, they respond that a) it is not a body, just a "blob of protoplasm" (thereby displaying ignorance of biology); or b) it is not really a "person" until it is born.

When it was suggested that this is a wholly arbitrary decision, unsupported by any biology evidence, they said, "Well, that's your point of view. This is a matter of individual conscience, and in a pluralistic society people must be free to follow their consciences."




Thinking Liberals, largely an oxymoron today, continue embracing rectitude over party loyalty.

Thank you for your view from the Republican/Trump marching band.

You are so far off base with this pro-choice as being a party directive.

There is no scientifically proven time when a fetus become human life. Why should everyone be forced to adhere to your definition?

Furthermore this " OMG OMG OMG human life!! Human life!!" is shown to be bullshit when you support stealing children at the border, support cutting benefits to poor people, cutting education, feeding kids unhealthy school lunches, and any of the other anti -children stances your party takes.

So really, shove your pretend giving a shit about human life. Let me know when you start giving a shit about children after they are born.

Eschew the vulgarity and I'll consider giving you the thrashing your post deserves.

Why do you post such drivel?

Oh....because you're RealDumb.

What can you expect from someone who can barely produce a sentence without "assfuck" in it?

 

[beautress]

Liberals On Abortion

JoeB131: "Wow, slandering the fine young men and women of our armed forces."
​

Apparently you were not born when this event took place: Charles Whitman was a former Marine sharpshooter who, in 1966, targeted and killed random civilians at the University of Texas before being stopped by police.

Mass murderer Charles Joseph Whitman was born on June 24, 1941, in Lake Worth, Florida. Taught at an early age to handle guns, Whitman was a good student and Eagle Scout who left home to join the Marines immediately after his eighteenth birthday in 1959. Whitman underwent boot camp in South Carolina, earning a sharpshooter ranking, and served at Cuba's Guantanamo Navy Base for more than a year.

On August 1, 1966, Whitman, along with an assortment of weapons and supplies stored in a trunk, entered the University of Texas tower, wearing overalls. He headed up to the observation deck, fatally injuring a receptionist and killing two others along the way. Once he reached the deck, he began shooting at the people below. The rampage lasted less than two hours, with most of the deaths and injuries occurring in the first 15 to 20 minutes.

Whitman shot most of his victims near or in the heart. In total, he murdered 14 people* and wounded 30 more on the campus before being shot and killed by two police officers, with a wide range of civilians assisting authorities during the crisis.
​

* Other accounts list one of the 14 people as an unborn child carried by one of the victims. You see, people considered unborn children as human beings in August of 1966.

Telling the truth is not slander by a long shot. Eat your own damn lie.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Regarding the alleged relationship between Jefferson and Hemmings: Were you peeping through the shutters, Joe, or are you making up the "raped the shit out of..." xx

First, it's against the rules to accuse a fellow board member of criminal conduct.

Second, of course what he did to her was rape, because there's simply no way you can "consent", when you are property.

Who wrote of this? In what diary does this information appear?

It was written about at the time by critics of Jefferson.

The controversy dates from the 1790s. Jefferson's sexual relationship with Hemings was first reported in 1802 by one of Jefferson's enemies, a political journalist named James T. Callender, after he noticed several light-skinned slaves at Monticello.[49] Jefferson himself never publicly denied this allegation.[49]

Or are you producing from your own imagination and experience, Joe? Fess up, now. Do you think black women are incapable of luring a man into bed with them, even if they are very young?

Again, total violation of the rules, you have been reported.

But that said, let's look at the power dynamic.

Sally was between 14-16 when Jefferson started his relationship with her. He was 44. He was a wealthy and powerful plantation owner, she was a slave. Who do you think held all the power in that relationship?

We abolished slavery, and I abhor it. We had to create a new party in order to get rid of slavery, and it was called the Republican Party. The Republican Party fought slavery, unequal education, injustices to women, unequal justice for minorities, the works. I lived through the Eisenhower years, and it was Eisenhower, who beat back the Nazis in WWII who beat back injustice in educational, job, and housing opportunites for black and worked on black suppression during his administration. Elitist Jack Kennedy didn't do that initially.

Eisenhower was a professional soldier, JFK wasn't. One of his brothers DIED in World War II. JFK himself was seriously injured in combat.

Yes, the GOP deserves credit for abolishing slavery, but frankly, it's more recent conduct, where it continues to appeal to racism to get stupid white people to vote against their own economic interests... as we used to say in the Army, One "Oh, Shit" erases a hundred "Attaboys".

I watch Democrats bending over backward to create false narratives to this day, that has reinforced my disgust with lies, including the lies the FBI used in order to fluff Democrat projectionists who took what Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama did and pretentiously accused falsely Hillary's adversary, Donald Trump.

Honey, both parties create false narratives. You should be old enough and mature enough to realize that. I mean, I kind of excuse the Mail Order Bride From Hell for her child-like view of the world... but you should know better.

I don't worry about what people did 60 years ago. What are they doing now.

Right now, the GOP is supporting a corrupt and mentally unstable president because he "owns the libs". Just ignore the kids he's putting in concentration camps. Or his attacks on a free press. Or how his business is profiting from his presidency.

The party of family values now argues that it was perfectly okay that Trump paid off a porn star.... kind of like you are now trying to ignore a mountain of historical evidence that Thomas Jefferson raped his slave.

I accused any one of criminal conduct? I was unaware of that. Were you there? The answer is, no you were not there. Did you see the conduct of Jefferson and his woman? No, you did not see the conduct of Mr. Jefferson. Did you see the conduct of the woman? No, you did not see the conduct of the woman. Do I believe you? I certainly do not believe you were an expert witness. Yes, I have heard stories about the alleged DNA. Were those samples of DNA authentic? Was I there? No, i did not see the samples, and no, I do not necessarily believe the stories that they allegedly tell, because I do not know whether the researchers are prejudiced or not. If they knew what the samples were, it was not a blind study. There are a lot of things that make a scientific study valid, and some do not. I greatly suspect that 200 year-old samples are not reliable. That is all. I do not believe that samples that are 200 years old of DNA that has rotted in a humid to freezing temperatures grave are reliable. I just don't believe it at all. Yet that is the only comparison the lab folks had, and if they knew who and what it was intended for, there was bias, and I suspect there was bias. Bias + degraded samples = my disbelief in the reliability of 200 year old DNA "samples."

They didn't work off of 200-year-old samples from the actual historical figures. They compared DNA samples from living descendants of both families. What they found was that Sally Hemings' first child was not fathered by anyone in Jefferson's family. Her youngest child was, but there were something like 12 adult males in the Jefferson family living either at Monticello, or near it, at the time the kid was born. And Jefferson himself was not the likeliest suspect, given that he was an old man by then. They weren't able to test any DNA from descendants of her other children.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Certainly any of us would like to be able to claim a President of the United States in our family tree. The Hemings family would. So, it makes sense that they would not participate in any endeavor which would cast doubt on the claim.

"After several months of research I was able to locate and identify a second Hemings DNA source, William Hemings, a son of Madison Hemings [Sally's eldest son], in a Veteran's, Cemetery in Leavenworth, Kansas. I notified the Hemings family, gave them forms and urged them to permit a gathering of that valuable DNA. At the same time I advised Monticello President Dan Jordan, and suggested he urge the Hemings to permit the gathering of a second Hemings DNA. He [Jordan] refused to contact them, suggested that I contact them, but cautioned me against undue pressure.

All eight Hemings family members refused to permit the test, and their spokesperson, Shay Banks-Young, informed me that they are happy with their oral family history and will never give permission."
"A Year at Monticello -- 1795," by Donald Jackson, p. 91-92

 

[Cecilie1200]

“Second, the right to life underlies and sustains every other right we have.

It is, as Thomas Jefferson and his friends said, self-evident. Logically, as well as in our Declaration of Independence, it comes before the right to liberty and the right to property.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Thomas Jefferson.

And he was so proud of himself that he went right home and raped Sally Hemmings, because that bitch was his property!

Just to put it all in the proper perspective, I'm sure she'd have loved to be able to abort a few of Jefferson's rape babies.

As is the case with so very many of your hate-filled posts, there is no proof of this anti-American meme.

"The media was swept up by the story. It’s so compelling, so seductive, to a society consumed by racial matters, that even the Wall Street Journal, which has diligently maintained a critical eye on the claims of Thomas Jefferson’s paternity, had inadvertently stamped its imprimatur onto the tale. Much to the distress of some of the editors, the statement "DNA testing would reveal that our nation's third president had almost certainly fathered several [slave] children,” slipped by in a Leisure & Arts section book review, demonstrating just how deeply ingrained the “myth of Tom and Sally” has become ["Poisoned Quills" March 8, 2006, p.D14].

In such an environment, Annette Gordon-Reed could make almost any sensational claim --- on the narrowest or most twisted of evidence --- about a relationship between Thomas Jefferson and a female slave on his plantation, and be assured that she would find an excited reception and little scrutiny, particularly as the book’s publishing schedule also coincided with the election of a popular president of mixed heritage. Rare is the full-length article on The Hemingses of Monticello that fails to draw any number of connections to President Barak Obama, and Gordon-Reed has both written and made public addresses on the genuine significance of Americans electing an African-American president.

As for the sticky matter of how she moves back and forth at will between point "A" (does not prove) and point "B" (fathered everybody), despite any meaningful change in the physical evidence, Gordon-Reed is content in the knowledge that even if more people catch on to the shenanigans, she will always find a welcoming audience. The members of the various awards committees certainly don’t appear to have noticed this. Or, perhaps, if some did, it was of no particular concern to them."

- See more at: Annette Gordon-Reed and the Jefferson DNA Myth | History News Network



Is there anyone....including yourself.....that you don't hate?

Actually DNA tests were run in 1998 with relatives of Jefferson and Hemings.

The DNA proves you very wrong. The DNA proves that Jefferson fathered at least one child with Sally Hemings.

DNA Test Finds Evidence Of Jefferson Child by Slave

1. I'm never wrong.

2. You actually believe anything in the NYTimes when it comes to denigrating America???

Gads, you're a dunce.


3. From this Liberal outlet....PBS

John H. Works, Jr., a Jefferson descendant and a past president of the Monticello Association, wrote a carefully worded explanation of the DNA test that attempted to link President Thomas Jefferson to a child of the slave Sally Hemings.


1. "Since Thomas Jefferson himself had no known legitimate male descendants (his wife Martha bore six children between 1772 and her death in 1782, but only two daughters lived to adulthood), a direct comparison between his and Sally Hemings' offspring could not be made. Dr. Eugene Foster, a retired UVA pathologist, therefore analyzed DNA from other male members of the Jefferson clan and compared them with samples from Sally Heming's male descendants to see if a Jefferson fathered them.


2. Dr. Foster conducted DNA tests on

5 male line descendants of 2 sons of Thomas Jefferson's paternal uncle, Field Jefferson, and

5 male line descendants of 2 sons of Thomas Woodson, including Thomas, Sally Hemings' first child (1790-1879),

1 male line descendant of Eston, Sally Hemings' last child (1808-1852), and

3 male line descendants of 3 sons of John Carr (grandfather of Samuel and Peter Carr, or Jefferson's nephews), long thought by the acknowledged Thomas Jefferson descendants to have been responsible for Sally Heming's children. For good measure, a panel of white descendants of Monticello's neighbors were also tested in case their forefathers might have contributed to Sally Heming's offspring.



3. Dr. Foster found that there was a match between the male descendants of Uncle Field Jefferson and those of Sally Heming's youngest son, Eston Hemings.

However there was no match between the male descendants of Tom Woodson, Sally Hemings' first-born son.

The nephews' heirs also did not match any of the others, and neither did the neighbors' descendants.



4. This DNA study testing the Y chromosome found that there was a link to "some" Jefferson, but not necessarily Thomas, having been the father of Eston, Sally Heming's youngest son. These DNA tests indicated that any one of 8 Jeffersons could have been the father of Eston and there was nothing to indicate it was Thomas.


5. On 5 November 1998 the journal Nature placed an inaccurate and misleading headline based on this study which read, "Jefferson Fathered Slave's Last Child". Most of the mass media and many others assumed the headline to be correct.


6. DNA tests performed on 1 Eston line came up positive, but tests performed originally on 5 Woodson lines in November 1998 came up negative, as did a recent DNA test on a 6th line performed in March 2000. These results should demonstrate beyond any reasonable doubt that Thomas Jefferson was not the father of Tom Woodson. The Woodson DNA tests are important because if Tom Woodson is Sally Heming's Paris-conceived son and could be shown to have Jefferson DNA, it would then be almost certain that Thomas Jefferson was his father, since Thomas was the only Jefferson in Paris at the time who could have impregnated Sally."

Is It True? - A Primer On Jefferson Dna | Jefferson's Blood | FRONTLINE | PBS

Also, it was Tom Woodson who was the origin of the rumors about Jefferson and Hemings, started in 1802 by a journalist who hated Jefferson and wanted to damage his reputation. Now we know, via DNA, that those rumors were always a vicious slander. For Jefferson to have fathered Eston Hemings, he would basically have had to start having sex with Sally years AFTER the rumors began, which would have been an odd choice, to say the least.

 

[Seawytch]

Why it should be rare? That needs explaining?

Coming from someone who also thinks it should be virtually unrestricted? Yes. I know why I think it should be rare, but I can't imagine why YOU would think that.

I actually understand that my goals and the goals of the anti choice assholes are aligned. It’s in how we reduce unwanted pregnancies and unnecessary abortions that we diverge. A self centered bitchtress wouldn’t understand so I can see where you don’t get that.

Now that you're done blowing smoke up your own ass about how you REALLY have a right to feel good about yourself as a person - No, REALLY - perhaps you could get back to the topic and say something that might matter. Cause Seabiscuit, the disapproval of "people" I wouldn't piss on if they were on fire doesn't qualify.

I've been on topic the entire time miss "see you next tuesday", while you've only made ad hominem attacks. I want to see abortions kept safe and legal while we use science, education and smart government to actually reduce the number of them.

Teen pregnancy and abortion rates see big drops, which Colorado officials attribute to IUD program

Now what's your idea your twatness?

You're still lecturing about what you WISH I was asking, and avoiding the question, Seabiscuit. I can only assume it's because you know your position is bad, but you're too selfish to want that to matter.

If you think there's nothing wrong with abortion, such that it should be legal, then why would you care if it was "rare" or not? And if you think it's something undesirable enough to want it to be "rare", why would you champion it being legally unrestricted?

Spare me the justifications and rationalizations, because I doubt they're convincing either one of us that you're a decent person. Just answer the question . . . or dodge it again, at which point I will take that as an admission that you're evil and don't care. Whichever.

You seem to think those two things can’t coexist, wanting women to have access to safe legal abortions and wanting there to be fewer abortions performed. That’s a ludicrous position. I want to reduce the number of abortions but have the procedure available if needed.

We don’t have an abortion problem, we have an unwanted pregnancy problem.

 

[rightwinger]

Conservatives oppose abortion.....
Until they need one

 

[Cecilie1200]

To those Leftists who say (as did WJC) that abortion should be "safe, legal, and rare," a challenge:

Why should you care if it is RARE? Seriously.

If it is merely removal of unwanted tissue, then what is the benefit - why is it "better" if abortions are rare...if not that there is something morally odious about abortion.

Why do you believe that abortion should be rare?

I see the abortion issue the same way I see suicide. It's tragic. I want it to be rare. But making it illegal does more harm than good.

Except that, in a manner of speaking, suicide IS illegal. Or, I guess, ATTEMPTED suicide is, since if you succeed, there isn't anything they can do about it. Every state handles it differently, but I believe they will all take some sort of action such as committing you to a mental health facility for observation and treatment.

That's pretty rare these days. Most states have come to realize it was a mistake and repealed such laws.

Please cite me a source for the claim that "it's rare" to commit an attempted suicide for mental health observation, and that "most states repealed" laws about attempted suicide. Most if not all no longer prosecute, as I've said, but that's not the same as completely repealing the laws.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Coming from someone who also thinks it should be virtually unrestricted? Yes. I know why I think it should be rare, but I can't imagine why YOU would think that.

I actually understand that my goals and the goals of the anti choice assholes are aligned. It’s in how we reduce unwanted pregnancies and unnecessary abortions that we diverge. A self centered bitchtress wouldn’t understand so I can see where you don’t get that.

Now that you're done blowing smoke up your own ass about how you REALLY have a right to feel good about yourself as a person - No, REALLY - perhaps you could get back to the topic and say something that might matter. Cause Seabiscuit, the disapproval of "people" I wouldn't piss on if they were on fire doesn't qualify.

I've been on topic the entire time miss "see you next tuesday", while you've only made ad hominem attacks. I want to see abortions kept safe and legal while we use science, education and smart government to actually reduce the number of them.

Teen pregnancy and abortion rates see big drops, which Colorado officials attribute to IUD program

Now what's your idea your twatness?

You're still lecturing about what you WISH I was asking, and avoiding the question, Seabiscuit. I can only assume it's because you know your position is bad, but you're too selfish to want that to matter.

If you think there's nothing wrong with abortion, such that it should be legal, then why would you care if it was "rare" or not? And if you think it's something undesirable enough to want it to be "rare", why would you champion it being legally unrestricted?

Spare me the justifications and rationalizations, because I doubt they're convincing either one of us that you're a decent person. Just answer the question . . . or dodge it again, at which point I will take that as an admission that you're evil and don't care. Whichever.

You seem to think those two things can’t coexist, wanting women to have access to safe legal abortions and wanting there to be fewer abortions performed. That’s a ludicrous position. I want to reduce the number of abortions but have the procedure available if needed.

We don’t have an abortion problem, we have an unwanted pregnancy problem.

Dodge. I accept your admission of being evil and perfectly happy with it if it gets your way. You're dismissed, Seabiscuit. Go talk to someone who'll buy your self-aggrandizement and excuses.

 

[dblack]

To those Leftists who say (as did WJC) that abortion should be "safe, legal, and rare," a challenge:

Why should you care if it is RARE? Seriously.

If it is merely removal of unwanted tissue, then what is the benefit - why is it "better" if abortions are rare...if not that there is something morally odious about abortion.

Why do you believe that abortion should be rare?

I see the abortion issue the same way I see suicide. It's tragic. I want it to be rare. But making it illegal does more harm than good.

Except that, in a manner of speaking, suicide IS illegal. Or, I guess, ATTEMPTED suicide is, since if you succeed, there isn't anything they can do about it. Every state handles it differently, but I believe they will all take some sort of action such as committing you to a mental health facility for observation and treatment.

That's pretty rare these days. Most states have come to realize it was a mistake and repealed such laws.

Please cite me a source for the claim that "it's rare" to commit an attempted suicide for mental health observation, and that "most states repealed" laws about attempted suicide. Most if not all no longer prosecute, as I've said, but that's not the same as completely repealing the laws.

Will do. Right after you cite a source for your claim. I have one ready to go, but fair's fair.

 

[jknowgood]

You mean taking out a dictator that would put people in a meat grinder feet first for entertainment?

The US army killed way more Iraqis than Saddam ever did. Not even close.

Agreed. Now how did this fact have anything to do with this thread topic?

What are you? The topic police? We're comparing mass murder. Isn't that what you call abortion?

So then, you were attempting to minimize the 60 million babies massacred in the womb. Why?

Because it drives you nuts. And you can't do anything about it.

You a sad person. Get help.

 

[gipper]

You mean taking out a dictator that would put people in a meat grinder feet first for entertainment?

The US army killed way more Iraqis than Saddam ever did. Not even close.

Agreed. Now how did this fact have anything to do with this thread topic?

What are you? The topic police? We're comparing mass murder. Isn't that what you call abortion?

So then, you were attempting to minimize the 60 million babies massacred in the womb. Why?

Because it drives you nuts. And you can't do anything about it.

Mass murder is no joking matter, but apparently it is to people like you.

Are you too related to Heinrich Himmler?

 

[Taz]

The US army killed way more Iraqis than Saddam ever did. Not even close.

Agreed. Now how did this fact have anything to do with this thread topic?

What are you? The topic police? We're comparing mass murder. Isn't that what you call abortion?

So then, you were attempting to minimize the 60 million babies massacred in the womb. Why?

Because it drives you nuts. And you can't do anything about it.

You a sad person. Get help.

I'm ready to let you choose to have an abortion or not, can't be any fairer than that.