Pro life or choice? (poll)

[YoursTruly]

One thing I might add about these states that have banned abortions with no exceptions, is going to keep a lot of innocent men out of prison, on false rape charges. If rape or incest is an exception, then the woman would have to file rape charges on someone. Including the man (even her brother) she had consensual sex with.

2022 Ohio child-rape and Indiana abortion case - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Something to think about, do you remember the 10-year-old girl in Ohio that was impregnated after Roe vs. Wade was shot down? The Left ran with the story because the mother said she was turned down by an Ohio doctor for an abortion because Ohio had passed legislation against abortion right after Roe vs Wade went bye, bye. So, she went to an Indiana doctor because there she could get an abortion. The doctor then leaked the story to the media, which violated their HIPPA laws, but no matter, she still has her job.

But then a problem occurred, why did the Ohio doctor not alert authorities to the 10-year-old girl being pregnant since a crime had occurred? Had he performed the abortion, who would have known? Also, once the Indiana doctor alerted authorities, which she had to do by law, it had to be investigated. Well, it turns out that the father was a live-in boyfriend of the mother, because he admitted to it later on. However, the mother still refused to believe it and wanted him to move back in with them and have everything return to normal. But there was no turning back as genetics showed he was indeed the father.

Did I mention he was also an illegal alien?

LOL.

Yea, the media dropped that story like a hot potato.

So, I would argue that abortion has helped hide much of the abuse girls and women have endured as well.
[/QUOTE]


I heard about that. Lot's of twists & turn in that whole story.

If the media didn't report about abortions, the only ones who would care would be those who are actually in that situation. Just like everything else.

 

[YoursTruly]

View attachment 930280

I like Bill Burr's take on abortions. It's like a cake. (comedy gold)

 

[whitehall]

Trump gets blamed for a decision by the Supreme Court that found that there was no Constitutional right to hire someone to murder an unborn human. Go figure.

 

[sparky]

OK...At what point is the zygote determined to have a "body" worthy of natural rights?

Don't answer that...It's just another example of the steps down the rabbit hole.

Again, the rights of the mother stand. The only question is, does the infant have any rights inside the womb.

Actually life begins in the male. Because sperm is a living organism.

Gentlemen, as an aside, quite some time ago when a limb was lost, it would be buried with full funeral accommodations despite those that had forfeited it surviving

Unsavory as this nostalgic fact may be, those of our past considered any part of us 'life' while being part of the whole package vs. that which we excluded from it

~S~

 

[Votto]

Trump gets blamed for a decision by the Supreme Court that found that there was no Constitutional right to hire someone to murder an unborn human. Go figure.

Democrats get their cake and eat it to

You know why? It is because not only do they get to blame Trump for Roe vs. Wade being overturned, but now that the states have abortion the laws on abortion are completely deregulated. There are now more abortions after Roe than before.

As always, they get the propaganda points as well as the outcomes they want.

 

[XponentialChaos]

Very interesting topic.

After decades of arguing that a fetus is a person and that abortion is murder, many conservatives are now suddenly fine with babies getting murdered?

I’m not buying it.

Hypothetically speaking, if 40 states voted to allow abortion, would conservatives be ok with that? “Hey we left it up to the states, and the people in those states decided that they want to murder babies, and that’s perfectly fine with us. Go ahead and murder those babies.”

I don’t believe that for a second. You’re not ok with leaving it up to the states. You guys will pass a national abortion ban the first chance you get.

 

[hjmick]

It's not like these people are going to be producing anything that benefits society.

Who do you mean when you say "these people?"

 

[Votto]

Very interesting topic.

After decades of arguing that a fetus is a person and that abortion is murder, many conservatives are now suddenly fine with babies getting murdered?

I’m not buying it.

Hypothetically speaking, if 40 states voted to allow abortion, would conservatives be ok with that? “Hey we left it up to the states, and the people in those states decided that they want to murder babies, and that’s perfectly fine with us. Go ahead and murder those babies.”

I don’t believe that for a second. You’re not ok with leaving it up to the states. You guys will pass a national abortion ban the first chance you get.

The Supreme Court needs to make a ruling on when personhood starts, in term of their rights.

That is the least they can do.

I probably won't agree with it, but they need to make a stand instead of cowering behind the ruling of the states.

Do you agree?

 

[XponentialChaos]

The Supreme Court needs to make a ruling on when personhood starts, in term of their rights.

That is the least they can do.

I probably won't agree with it, but they need to make a stand instead of cowering behind the ruling of the states.

Do you agree?

I don’t expect the Supreme Court to make a ruling on when personhood starts.

 

[Votto]

I don’t expect the Supreme Court to make a ruling on when personhood starts.

Why not when that is the issue?

 

[XponentialChaos]

Why not when that is the issue?

Because I don’t think there’s enough material from the founding fathers to justify a legal argument on that.

I think they’re more likely to just punt that over to the states to let them figure it out.

 

[frigidweirdo]

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.

It's not "pro-life" is it?

Pro-life is anti-war, anti-executions, anti-killing animals...

This is "anti-abortion". Why don't just say it?

 

[Votto]

Because I don’t think there’s enough material from the founding fathers to justify a legal argument on that.

I think they’re more likely to just punt that over to the states to let them figure it out.

I would be Ok with states tackling that question as well, so why do none of them do it?

Don't you think it is kind of an important topic to tackle when discussing such things as abortion?

 

[XponentialChaos]

I would be Ok with states tackling that question as well, so why do none of them do it?

Don't you think it is kind of an important topic to tackle when discussing such things as abortion?

I don’t know. Ask your state representative.

 

[Votto]

I don’t know. Ask your state representative.

Afraid to answer, as I suspected.

My representative will also promptly ignore me as well.

 

[Red Front]

Pro-Choice with qualifiers. I believe a woman should have the right to end her pregnancy within 16 weeks gestation. After that, she has a prenatal human being in her womb, hence abortions of convenience shouldn't be permitted.

The "pro-lifers" pretend to be champions of fetuses, defenders of embryos in the wombs of strangers. The reality is that these holy rollers just want to punish women whom they consider "harlots", with a pregnancy. They don't care about the life in these women's uteruses, because the so-called pro-lifers are the first ones to defund government programs that help single mothers raise their children.

These self-righteous poopie-heads reduce or even eliminate access to child daycare programs, food stamps, access to housing assistance, Medicaid, school lunch vouchers, afterschool programs, vouchers for school supplies, vocational job training and night school programs, public transit discounts, public infrastructure development..etc. They're not pro-life, they're pro-death. They want to use the heavy hand of the government to force women to remain pregnant for nine months and give birth to children they don't want or have the resources to raise. Where are the holy ones when these women lose their jobs due to their pregnancies? Are they going to provide these unemployed pregnant women with food, housing..etc? No.

These unwanted children end up like this:

​

"I was neglected as a child, my mom despised me and I've never met my father"

​

This is "pro-life"? Ironically, the same people who were shouting and whining about the "heavy hand" of the government, mandating that they wear a mask on their faces (their bodies), in crowded, public venues, in the middle of a nationwide deadly pandemic, are the same people employing the same heavy hand of government to force single, impoverished women to carry an embryo or undeveloped fetus in their bodies, full-term, for nine months. Without any consideration whatsoever for the needs of the pregnant woman, carrying that embryo or undeveloped fetus in her body. The hypocrisy of these conservative "do-gooders" has no limits. They're not pro-life, they're pro-death.

​

 

[XponentialChaos]

Afraid to answer, as I suspected.

My representative will also promptly ignore me as well.

Then I suggest you follow-up with them if you’re that interested in this. I don’t have the answer to that and I don’t expect them to specifically outline something as abstract as “personhood”.

 

[Votto]

Pro-Choice with qualifiers. I believe a woman should have the right to end her pregnancy within 16 weeks gestation. After that, she has a prenatal human being in her womb, hence abortions of convenience shouldn't be permitted.

The "pro-lifers" pretend to be champions of fetuses, defenders of embryos in the wombs of strangers. The reality is that these holy rollers just want to punish women whom they consider "harlots", with a pregnancy. They don't care about the life in these women's uteruses, because the so-called pro-lifers are the first ones to defund government programs that help single mothers raise their children.

These self-righteous poopie-heads reduce or even eliminate access to child daycare programs, food stamps, access to housing assistance, Medicaid, school lunch vouchers, afterschool programs, vouchers for school supplies, vocational job training and night school programs, public transit discounts, public infrastructure development..etc. They're not pro-life, they're pro-death. They want to use the heavy hand of the government to force women to remain pregnant for nine months and give birth to children they don't want or have the resources to raise. Where are the holy ones when these women lose their jobs due to their pregnancies? Are they going to provide these unemployed pregnant women with food, housing..etc? No.

These unwanted children end up like this:

View attachment 930443​

"I was neglected as a child, my mom despised me and I've never met my father"

View attachment 930447

View attachment 930449


View attachment 930451


View attachment 930452















​

This is "pro-life"? Ironically, the same people who were shouting and whining about the "heavy hand" of the government, mandating that they wear a mask on their faces (their bodies), in crowded, public venues, in the middle of a nationwide deadly pandemic, are the same people employing the same heavy hand of government to force single, impoverished women to carry an embryo or undeveloped fetus in their bodies, full-term, for nine months. Without any consideration whatsoever for the needs of the pregnant woman, carrying that embryo or undeveloped fetus in her body. The hypocrisy of these conservative "do-gooders" has no limits. They're not pro-life, they're pro-death.

​

So, you view the fetus to have rights at 16 week gestation?

 

[Votto]

Then I suggest you follow-up with them if you’re that interested in this. I don’t have the answer to that and I don’t expect them to specifically outline something as abstract as “personhood”.

I know, I know, just go away and shut the hell up.

LOL.

 

[BrokeLoser]

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.

I’ve said it and said it and said it again…Trump and Republicans are fucking this one up big time…All they have to do is say…”We support abortions by the millions in all disgusting, diverse shitholes…we think a mobile abortion wagon should be on every corner of every street in every ghetto and barrio in America”
If they had the nuts to make that play they win on abortion…BUT they don’t have the nuts for that play.
Oddball