Liberal's support for Partial-Birth Abortion proves they are awful people with no conscience

[francoHFW]

It's "fake news" that the GOP elector vowed to not vote for Trump?

Fake News is you think there is a chance he wont become President, its called denial. That guy is just an attention whore

No, fake news is just making shytte up, like Hillary the liar corrupt murderer, and most of the crap GOPers believe after listening to Fox and Rush etc for a while...Bad economy, Obama got what he wanted and had control for 2 years, ACORN, Kenyan Muslim Marxist,Tides, Mosque, Death Panel, lose your doctor, huge costs, DEBT CRISIS, Obama Recession, stimulus failed, Barney Frank, Nazi Soros, Nazi socialists, Volt suqs, Iran making bomb etc etc.

It is a liberal Constructive, because echeggia dont control the news any longer.

Trump was for tightening the libel laws, but libs like you called him a facist.
Now youre worried about It? You weren't when Hillary was winning, youre just full of shit.

What is echeggia? And of course I was sick about it for the last 30 yearsl that's how long Fox/Rush/Kochs/etcetc have been making billions fooling you dupes. It's great that corporate news is starting to pay attention NOW - argh.

 

[francoHFW]

Obama’s opposed Illinois legislation in 2001, 2002 and 2003 that would have defined any aborted fetus that showed signs of life as a "born alive infant" entitled to legal protection, even if doctors believe it could not survive.
(-- This is verified by FactCheck.org, even though they disagree with this beig called 'supporting 'infantcide': Obama and 'Infanticide' - FactCheck.org)

THAT means President Obama opposed a baby, outside the womb fighting for life after a failed attempted abortion, being recognized as a 'baby' and being given legal protection as a human being rather than retain the 'status' of being nothing more than a 'lump of cells'.

Further explaining, THAT means President Obama fought for the right to murder babies outside the womb who have survived failed abortions.

This surpasses even the latest acceptable 'Late term Abortion' procedures - we are talking about killing a living, breathing human being outside the womb.

It's bad enough that anyone would support shoving a metal rod inside of the skull of a baby capable of surviving outside the womb, scrambling its brains, cutting it into pieces, and dragging the parts out of the mother - unless the mother's life was in danger...but to be a proponent of murdering a living, breathing human being outside the womb is altogether so much more horrible.
-- It is appalling that we like to consider ourselves such an advances, sophisticated culture yet would engage in such barbaric acts still today.

Abortions are not a form of post-intercourse contraceptive.

Abortions are not meant to be an 'easy way to escape the consequences of one's actions.

If one wants to ensure pregnancy does not occur they can immediately take the 'morning after' pill instead of waiting until a baby begins developing and killing it.

The vast majority of abortions are 'Elective Surgery' that should be paid for by the individual wanting the surgery.

At a certain point during the pregnancy a baby - a living human being - is created, one that can actually survive outside the womb. At that point no abortions should be allowed (IMO) unless of emergency, such as the life of the mother being in danger.

In my humble opinion, once you have a positive pregnancy test and some form of evidence that the pregnancy is not going to harm the mother such as an ectopic pregnancy or an existing chronic maternal/fetal health condition, then the baby should receive some sort of protection, and butchering the baby should not be allowed.

It's not a civil rights issue.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

The SC thinks you're nuts.

 

[francoHFW]

Late term abortions are rarely done and they are generally done for the health of the mother or if is the baby severely deformed and wouldn't live a second outside the womb.

Secondly, you concsrvatives hypocrites. In one breath you are a full supporter of a fetus and it's rights. But soon as that fetus is born, you don't give a shit about it. You don't want it to have free healthcare or free higher education so they can live a full life. You want welfare programs cut. You complain about welfare queens having 8 kids but you don't support forcing free birth control pills and don't want people getting abortions. So you are going to have the number of welfare queens double.

If you are going to support a fetus's rights then you need to support it from conception until death. Not from conception until birth.

We are against murder of babies. That's effectively what it is and always has been. Using terms like fetus or whatever is just a political and social tactic to dehumanize the babies. It's akin to tactics used by the Nazis when the dehumanized the Jews to justify what they were doing.

Furthermore, just because we oppose abortion and don't support giving away free healthcare or free college does not mean that we are hypocrites. You can oppose murder and handouts at the same time. Plus, the last time that I checked, the poor already have free healthcare and a plethora of options for free college.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

What about the middle class your idiot party has wrecked the last 30 years? see sig. Public colleges used to be FREE MANY places before Reaganism. Every country but us has great cheap daycare and paid parental leave but us. Because of brainwashed functional morons like you. Free BC under ACA has cut abortions by 50% ALREADY. THINK!

Nazis? You're right off the wall. Babies have to be born, and the supreme court ruled that before 12 weeks the feti are not any kind of being. Total dupe of the GOP greedy a-hole megarich... brainwashers..

First of all I thought we were talking about abortion, but anyway, who cares what other countries do? We are the United States of America. We are the measuring stick to which other countries compare themselves.

Also, I think you further proved my point about the strategy to further dehumanize killing babies.

Also, sorry that I'm a brainwashed functional moron, GOP greedy a-hole megarich...brainwasher. Lol. Merry Christmas.

P.S.

Medicaid is available to all of the poor, and its free. Also, you might want to call any high school counselor about the opportunities for free college for poor minorities with decent grades and test scores. You might be amazed or angered, I can't tell.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

And after 30 years of Reaganism, other countries feel sorry for us and wonder how we can be so stupid...see sig-all fact.

What countries?
What people in those countries?
I doubt those people know shit about our country

Every country in the world. They know our min wage, vacations, parental leave, health care, day care, tax rates etc etc are a joke. Only GOP dupes DON'T, dupe. And now Trump...lol.

 

[Timmy]

You know who gets late term abortions ? Devastated couples who find out their baby's insides , are actually on the outsides ! If baby and mom actually survive the birth, baby has a few minutes of life before it dies . Nature can be a real bitch when it comes to pregnancy .


That's who you are talking about . Not some careless skank who wants an abortion cause she caught her boyfriend cheating .

 

[owebo]

Obama’s opposed Illinois legislation in 2001, 2002 and 2003 that would have defined any aborted fetus that showed signs of life as a "born alive infant" entitled to legal protection, even if doctors believe it could not survive.
(-- This is verified by FactCheck.org, even though they disagree with this beig called 'supporting 'infantcide': Obama and 'Infanticide' - FactCheck.org)

THAT means President Obama opposed a baby, outside the womb fighting for life after a failed attempted abortion, being recognized as a 'baby' and being given legal protection as a human being rather than retain the 'status' of being nothing more than a 'lump of cells'.

Further explaining, THAT means President Obama fought for the right to murder babies outside the womb who have survived failed abortions.

This surpasses even the latest acceptable 'Late term Abortion' procedures - we are talking about killing a living, breathing human being outside the womb.

It's bad enough that anyone would support shoving a metal rod inside of the skull of a baby capable of surviving outside the womb, scrambling its brains, cutting it into pieces, and dragging the parts out of the mother - unless the mother's life was in danger...but to be a proponent of murdering a living, breathing human being outside the womb is altogether so much more horrible.
-- It is appalling that we like to consider ourselves such an advances, sophisticated culture yet would engage in such barbaric acts still today.

Abortions are not a form of post-intercourse contraceptive.

Abortions are not meant to be an 'easy way to escape the consequences of one's actions.

If one wants to ensure pregnancy does not occur they can immediately take the 'morning after' pill instead of waiting until a baby begins developing and killing it.

The vast majority of abortions are 'Elective Surgery' that should be paid for by the individual wanting the surgery.

At a certain point during the pregnancy a baby - a living human being - is created, one that can actually survive outside the womb. At that point no abortions should be allowed (IMO) unless of emergency, such as the life of the mother being in danger.

In my humble opinion, once you have a positive pregnancy test and some form of evidence that the pregnancy is not going to harm the mother such as an ectopic pregnancy or an existing chronic maternal/fetal health condition, then the baby should receive some sort of protection, and butchering the baby should not be allowed.

It's not a civil rights issue.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

The SC thinks you're nuts.

You will hate our SCOTUS until the day you die....

 

[francoHFW]

Obama’s opposed Illinois legislation in 2001, 2002 and 2003 that would have defined any aborted fetus that showed signs of life as a "born alive infant" entitled to legal protection, even if doctors believe it could not survive.
(-- This is verified by FactCheck.org, even though they disagree with this beig called 'supporting 'infantcide': Obama and 'Infanticide' - FactCheck.org)

THAT means President Obama opposed a baby, outside the womb fighting for life after a failed attempted abortion, being recognized as a 'baby' and being given legal protection as a human being rather than retain the 'status' of being nothing more than a 'lump of cells'.

Further explaining, THAT means President Obama fought for the right to murder babies outside the womb who have survived failed abortions.

This surpasses even the latest acceptable 'Late term Abortion' procedures - we are talking about killing a living, breathing human being outside the womb.

It's bad enough that anyone would support shoving a metal rod inside of the skull of a baby capable of surviving outside the womb, scrambling its brains, cutting it into pieces, and dragging the parts out of the mother - unless the mother's life was in danger...but to be a proponent of murdering a living, breathing human being outside the womb is altogether so much more horrible.
-- It is appalling that we like to consider ourselves such an advances, sophisticated culture yet would engage in such barbaric acts still today.

Abortions are not a form of post-intercourse contraceptive.

Abortions are not meant to be an 'easy way to escape the consequences of one's actions.

If one wants to ensure pregnancy does not occur they can immediately take the 'morning after' pill instead of waiting until a baby begins developing and killing it.

The vast majority of abortions are 'Elective Surgery' that should be paid for by the individual wanting the surgery.

At a certain point during the pregnancy a baby - a living human being - is created, one that can actually survive outside the womb. At that point no abortions should be allowed (IMO) unless of emergency, such as the life of the mother being in danger.

In my humble opinion, once you have a positive pregnancy test and some form of evidence that the pregnancy is not going to harm the mother such as an ectopic pregnancy or an existing chronic maternal/fetal health condition, then the baby should receive some sort of protection, and butchering the baby should not be allowed.

It's not a civil rights issue.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

The SC thinks you're nuts.

You will hate our SCOTUS until the day you die....

It's sucked for at least 30 years...Trump will probably dump you on that too, dupe.

 

[owebo]

Obama’s opposed Illinois legislation in 2001, 2002 and 2003 that would have defined any aborted fetus that showed signs of life as a "born alive infant" entitled to legal protection, even if doctors believe it could not survive.
(-- This is verified by FactCheck.org, even though they disagree with this beig called 'supporting 'infantcide': Obama and 'Infanticide' - FactCheck.org)

THAT means President Obama opposed a baby, outside the womb fighting for life after a failed attempted abortion, being recognized as a 'baby' and being given legal protection as a human being rather than retain the 'status' of being nothing more than a 'lump of cells'.

Further explaining, THAT means President Obama fought for the right to murder babies outside the womb who have survived failed abortions.

This surpasses even the latest acceptable 'Late term Abortion' procedures - we are talking about killing a living, breathing human being outside the womb.

It's bad enough that anyone would support shoving a metal rod inside of the skull of a baby capable of surviving outside the womb, scrambling its brains, cutting it into pieces, and dragging the parts out of the mother - unless the mother's life was in danger...but to be a proponent of murdering a living, breathing human being outside the womb is altogether so much more horrible.
-- It is appalling that we like to consider ourselves such an advances, sophisticated culture yet would engage in such barbaric acts still today.

Abortions are not a form of post-intercourse contraceptive.

Abortions are not meant to be an 'easy way to escape the consequences of one's actions.

If one wants to ensure pregnancy does not occur they can immediately take the 'morning after' pill instead of waiting until a baby begins developing and killing it.

The vast majority of abortions are 'Elective Surgery' that should be paid for by the individual wanting the surgery.

At a certain point during the pregnancy a baby - a living human being - is created, one that can actually survive outside the womb. At that point no abortions should be allowed (IMO) unless of emergency, such as the life of the mother being in danger.

In my humble opinion, once you have a positive pregnancy test and some form of evidence that the pregnancy is not going to harm the mother such as an ectopic pregnancy or an existing chronic maternal/fetal health condition, then the baby should receive some sort of protection, and butchering the baby should not be allowed.

It's not a civil rights issue.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

The SC thinks you're nuts.

You will hate our SCOTUS until the day you die....

It's sucked for at least 30 years...Trump will probably dump you on that too, dupe.

40 even....we're going to fix all that...

 

[Denechek]

But honestly, aren't you glad your parents didn't abort you just because you don't have a brain?