Pro life or choice? (poll)

[YoursTruly]

Roe V. Wade allowed states to decide for themselves as to whether or not to allow woman and their doctors to kill their babies. And Trump get's all sorts of fake praises by pro life people for selecting SC judges that overturned R. v W. But is this really a pro-life stance?
Up until I gave this this whole issue some thought, I was 99% pro life. (having the normal exceptions, like rape, incest and severe medical conditions). But let's dig into this whole concept of states rights & being pro life.
When Trump credits himself for being pro life, using R. v. W. as his proof, is he really pro life? Because he still supports these pro abortion states rights to kill babies. There are no borders or state line for babies being murdered. A baby in CA or Texas is still a baby. So if one supports the killing babies in CA, but not Tx, then one still supports a womans right to kill a baby. That in itself makes one pro choice.

So the question is, if you support R. v. W. being states rights, does that mean you're still pro choice? Because the only way to stop abortions throughout the USA, and be an actual pro life politician, would be to support a federal abortion ban. Which Trump doesn't support.

For the record, I support Trumps pro choice stance on this. If people want to kill their babies, fine. It's not like these people are going to be producing anything that benefits society. In fact, it helps to reduce crime later on.

 

[boevans]

YoursTruly will work for a federal ban.

 

[Independentthinker]

Roe V. Wade allowed states to decide for themselves as to whether or not to allow woman and their doctors to kill their babies. And Trump get's all sorts of fake praises by pro life people for selecting SC judges that overturned R. v W. But is this really a pro-life stance?
Up until I gave this this whole issue some thought, I was 99% pro life. (having the normal exceptions, like rape, incest and severe medical conditions). But let's dig into this whole concept of states rights & being pro life.
When Trump credits himself for being pro life, using R. v. W. as his proof, is he really pro life? Because he still supports these pro abortion states rights to kill babies. There are no borders or state line for babies being murdered. A baby in CA or Texas is still a baby. So if one supports the killing babies in CA, but not Tx, then one still supports a womans right to kill a baby. That in itself makes one pro choice.

So the question is, if you support R. v. W. being states rights, does that mean you're still pro choice? Because the only way to stop abortions throughout the USA, and be an actual pro life politician, would be to support a federal abortion ban. Which Trump doesn't support.

For the record, I support Trumps pro choice stance on this. If people want to kill their babies, fine. It's not like these people are going to be producing anything that benefits society. In fact, it helps to reduce crime later on.

Don't understand the question. Why would something a state does effect how you feel on the subject? You feel the way you feel.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Orange man is a weed blowing in the wind just like the rest of them.

 

[Oddball]

Roe V. Wade allowed states to decide for themselves as to whether or not to allow woman and their doctors to kill their babies. And Trump get's all sorts of fake praises by pro life people for selecting SC judges that overturned R. v W. But is this really a pro-life stance?
Up until I gave this this whole issue some thought, I was 99% pro life. (having the normal exceptions, like rape, incest and severe medical conditions). But let's dig into this whole concept of states rights & being pro life.
When Trump credits himself for being pro life, using R. v. W. as his proof, is he really pro life? Because he still supports these pro abortion states rights to kill babies. There are no borders or state line for babies being murdered. A baby in CA or Texas is still a baby. So if one supports the killing babies in CA, but not Tx, then one still supports a womans right to kill a baby. That in itself makes one pro choice.

So the question is, if you support R. v. W. being states rights, does that mean you're still pro choice? Because the only way to stop abortions throughout the USA, and be an actual pro life politician, would be to support a federal abortion ban. Which Trump doesn't support.

For the record, I support Trumps pro choice stance on this. If people want to kill their babies, fine. It's not like these people are going to be producing anything that benefits society. In fact, it helps to reduce crime later on.

Though I'm a pro-lifer, a federal ban on abortion will "work" like a federal ban on alcohol did....As in it won't work.

You need to win hearts and minds at the state level.

The right is recreating the same fuck-up they made in 1994, when they * unexpectedly* won both houses of congress, then acted as though they were done....You need to keep working to change hearts and minds....It's not one win and it's Miller time.

 

[YoursTruly]

Though I'm a pro-lifer, a federal ban on abortion will "work" like a federal ban on alcohol did....As in it won't work.

You need to win hearts and minds at the state level.

The right is recreating the same fuck-up they made in 1994, when they * unexpectedly* won both houses of congress, then acted as though they were done....You need to keep working to change hearts and minds....It's not one win and it's Miller time.

All of that is irrelevant. Does states rights on abortion still make you pro choice? If you support a states right to murder babies, then you support murdering babies.
States rights on abortion is just a sugar coated pro choice stance.

 

[YoursTruly]

YoursTruly will work for a federal ban.

You didn't read all of my statement, did you? I said I'm pro choice, just like Trump is.

 

[YoursTruly]

Don't understand the question. Why would something a state does effect how you feel on the subject? You feel the way you feel.

How would it not? R. v, W. allows states to murder babies. If you're pro life, then you support life in all states and a federal ban on murder (for babies) If you support states rights, then you support killing babies in only certain states. Even if you only state that you don't support those states who kill babies, by supporting states rights, then it's only a fake opposition.

States rights is pro choice. Federal ban on abortion is pro life.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

You didn't read all of my statement, did you? I said I'm pro choice, just like Trump is.

I'm pro life. I'd be curious to see how pro life the red states really are. Let's take it to a state issue and see. We know the blue states are all in on killing babies in the womb.

 

[TNHarley]

RvW or not, doesnt matter to me.
I t is a state issue, though.
I think abortion is horrendous, but i do not support the state intervening.

 

[Rawley]

All of that is irrelevant. Does states rights on abortion still make you pro choice? If you support a states right to murder babies, then you support murdering babies.
States rights on abortion is just a sugar coated pro choice stance.

?? Supporting a state's right to set their own tax rates does not make you pro-taxes.

 

[Crepitus]

Roe V. Wade allowed states to decide for themselves as to whether or not to allow woman and their doctors to kill their babies. And Trump get's all sorts of fake praises by pro life people for selecting SC judges that overturned R. v W. But is this really a pro-life stance?
Up until I gave this this whole issue some thought, I was 99% pro life. (having the normal exceptions, like rape, incest and severe medical conditions). But let's dig into this whole concept of states rights & being pro life.
When Trump credits himself for being pro life, using R. v. W. as his proof, is he really pro life? Because he still supports these pro abortion states rights to kill babies. There are no borders or state line for babies being murdered. A baby in CA or Texas is still a baby. So if one supports the killing babies in CA, but not Tx, then one still supports a womans right to kill a baby. That in itself makes one pro choice.

So the question is, if you support R. v. W. being states rights, does that mean you're still pro choice? Because the only way to stop abortions throughout the USA, and be an actual pro life politician, would be to support a federal abortion ban. Which Trump doesn't support.

For the record, I support Trumps pro choice stance on this. If people want to kill their babies, fine. It's not like these people are going to be producing anything that benefits society. In fact, it helps to reduce crime later on.

pro life is not an accurate description for the woman hating right.

 

[Oddball]

All of that is irrelevant. Does states rights on abortion still make you pro choice? If you support a states right to murder babies, then you support murdering babies.
States rights on abortion is just a sugar coated pro choice stance.

It's exactly that attitude that is going to keep pro-lifers getting BTFO by the abortionists.

You've been battling at it since 1973 to get Roe overturned, and now are acting like you've won the entire fucking war....The political reality is still a far piece from the moral imperative...You don't just get to screech "ABORTION IS MURDER!" and call it a day.

In fact, I don't even think it's the morality...I think that most "conservatives" are just too fucking lazy to do the continued work it takes to win and keep winning.....The left has been going at it in earnest for more than a century, and you clowns can't even maintain the effort to push it back for so much as a couple years.

 

[Independentthinker]

How would it not? R. v, W. allows states to murder babies. If you're pro life, then you support life in all states and a federal ban on murder (for babies) If you support states rights, then you support killing babies in only certain states. Even if you only state that you don't support those states who kill babies, by supporting states rights, then it's only a fake opposition.

States rights is pro choice. Federal ban on abortion is pro life.

The Supreme Court decides cases in relation to laws and the Constitution, not by people's opinions.

 

[Crepitus]

 

[boevans]

You didn't read all of my statement, did you? I said I'm pro choice, just like Trump is.

You have no trouble with a federal ban.

 

[Oddball]

I'm pro life. I'd be curious to see how pro life the red states really are. Let's take it to a state issue and see. We know the blue states are all in on killing babies in the womb.

Exactly.

Even when you ask the abortionists, the vast majority of them find late-term abortions to be beyond any reason...Again, a point of leverage where you can push this shit back.

 

[jwoodie]

So the question is, if you support R. v. W. being states rights, does that mean you're still pro choice?

So the question is, do you support a state's right to establish criminal statutes and regulate medical care? For example, some states consider killing a pregnant woman to be double homicide. Other states do not. Why are you so concerned about the differences between states regarding abortion? Do you want the federal government to control everything? Do you think the Constitution grants it unlimited powers?

 

[Votto]

RvW or not, doesnt matter to me.
I t is a state issue, though.
I think abortion is horrendous, but i do not support the state intervening.

Is whether a black has equal protection under the law like a white also a state issue?

To me, the question is about personhood and rights under the Constitution, which is a federal issue.

When is a person a person? Is it when the Birth Fairty waves her magic wand over the infant as it comes out of the womb but not a second before?

These questions need answered and something Roe vs. Wade dared not attempt to answer.

 

[TNHarley]

Is whether a black has equal protection under the law like a white also a state issue?

no

To me, the question is about personhood

I agree somewhat. But where do you draw the line about taking away natural rights from the mother?