Liberals On Abortion

[PoliticalChic]

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.

 

[JoeB131]

Oh, boy, another round of Number-pointed Crazy from the Mail Order Bride From Hell.

Okay, one more time. You guys get your ban on abortion, how are you going to enforce it?

Are you going to lock up women for getting abortions? Because honestly, I don't see anything less than that as being a deterrent, now that we have DIY abortion pills.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Oh, boy, another round of Number-pointed Crazy from the Mail Order Bride From Hell.

Okay, one more time. You guys get your ban on abortion, how are you going to enforce it?

Are you going to lock up women for getting abortions? Because honestly, I don't see anything less than that as being a deterrent, now that we have DIY abortion pills.

Does ''you guys" refer to the actual Liberal who wrote the piece?


Or did it upset you when she identified you thus:

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."

 

[Taz]

NorthKoreaChic doesn't want to live in a free society. Maybe she should move back to you know where.

 

[DGS49]

One: It is "wrong" to kill babies. Even Leftists mainly agree with this.

Two: There is nothing wrong with removing "tissue" from the body of the person who wants it removed.

Three: At some point in time between ejaculation and live birth, the product of that copulation ceases being "tissue" and becomes a legal person, for Constitutional purposes.

Four: The position staked out by Justice Blackmun in Roe v. Wade (1973) was that the conversion from Tissue to Baby occurred at the time when the baby became arguably viable: that is, able to survive outside the womb. This was based on his reading of the medical science at the time of the decision. There have been new developments in neonatal care, and one could argue that viability now occurs prior to six months, but that is not relevant to this discussion.

Most of the people howling that they NEVER want Roe v. Wade overturned - that it is a "Super Precedent" - completely reject Justice Blackmun's line of demarkation, and insist that the Tissue/Baby line is drawn AT BIRTH. So they really don't want Roe v. Wade to be the law of the land; they want their own twisted version of RvW to prevail.

Five: Roe v. Wade is completely made-up law, based on a completely made-up Constitutional "right": the Right of Privacy. It is nowhere in the Constitution, and it is, legally speaking, an abomination, because it defies definition. A "right" that is based on a Constitutional Amendment that protects us from eavesdropping and unreasonable searches is trotted out to overturn sodomy laws? To void thousands of years of marriage laws? And then to prevent States from prohibiting abortions which, parenthetically, are forbidden by the Oath of Hippocrates? Good God, is there any better example of a Supreme Court run amok?

In a rational world (where no Leftists reside), one could have a rational argument about where the aforesaid line of Tissue/Baby demarkation should be drawn. At one extreme, there is a tenable argument that once the DNA of the person is established (i.e., at conception), it is a baby. At the other extreme, one could argue for the moment when that baby takes its first breath outside the womb. All sorts of considerations could be brought to bear, but two things are manifest: The Line should be between those two figurative goal posts, and the line should be drawn, not by a court of life-appointed jurists, but by the Peoples' representatives in either Congress or the State Legislatures.

Six: A couple of developments have raised this issue to a higher profile than usual: The conservative shift in the USSC (possibly shifting even a little bit further if the infamous RBG does the Right Thing in a timely manner), and the passage of a couple of state laws that, in effect draw the Tissue/Baby line much earlier than States have dared to draw it since the publication of RvW.

But the Left refuses to have this rational discussion. It insists that the WOMAN (don't you dare call her a "mother") has an absolute right to "remove the tissue" up to and even after the moment of live birth, according to her absolute discretion. Further, THEY DENY THE OPPOSING SIDE EVEN THE RIGHT TO RAISE POINTS IN SUPPORT OF THEIR POSITION. If they take any position other than the Leftist position, they are horrible bigots, misogynists, haters, deniers, and whatever other absurd insults they can gin up.

And note that in this, as in every other "discussion," they present no arguments on their own behalf. It is merely, "If you disagree with us, you are a [choose your ad hominem insult]!"

Leftists are scum.

 

[Seawytch]

Liberals on abortion: "Safe, legal and rare"

That's it. It is that simple.

 

[Sunni Man]

 

[rightwinger]

Oh, boy, another round of Number-pointed Crazy from the Mail Order Bride From Hell.

Okay, one more time. You guys get your ban on abortion, how are you going to enforce it?

Are you going to lock up women for getting abortions? Because honestly, I don't see anything less than that as being a deterrent, now that we have DIY abortion pills.

Does ''you guys" refer to the actual Liberal who wrote the piece?


Or did it upset you when she identified you thus:

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."

You didn’t write it?

That would mean it is another in a long line of cut and pastes from PC

Oh......The shame

 

[WillPower]

NorthKoreaChic doesn't want to live in a free society. Maybe she should move back to you know where.

Ripping viable children out of their mothers and selling their body parts to research ghouls is your idea of "free society"? you are one sick fuck, boy.

 

[PoliticalChic]

One: It is "wrong" to kill babies. Even Leftists mainly agree with this.

Two: There is nothing wrong with removing "tissue" from the body of the person who wants it removed.

Three: At some point in time between ejaculation and live birth, the product of that copulation ceases being "tissue" and becomes a legal person, for Constitutional purposes.

Four: The position staked out by Justice Blackmun in Roe v. Wade (1973) was that the conversion from Tissue to Baby occurred at the time when the baby became arguably viable: that is, able to survive outside the womb. This was based on his reading of the medical science at the time of the decision. There have been new developments in neonatal care, and one could argue that viability now occurs prior to six months, but that is not relevant to this discussion.

Most of the people howling that they NEVER want Roe v. Wade overturned - that it is a "Super Precedent" - completely reject Justice Blackmun's line of demarkation, and insist that the Tissue/Baby line is drawn AT BIRTH. So they really don't want Roe v. Wade to be the law of the land; they want their own twisted version of RvW to prevail.

Five: Roe v. Wade is completely made-up law, based on a completely made-up Constitutional "right": the Right of Privacy. It is nowhere in the Constitution, and it is, legally speaking, an abomination, because it defies definition. A "right" that is based on a Constitutional Amendment that protects us from eavesdropping and unreasonable searches is trotted out to overturn sodomy laws? To void thousands of years of marriage laws? And then to prevent States from prohibiting abortions which, parenthetically, are forbidden by the Oath of Hippocrates? Good God, is there any better example of a Supreme Court run amok?

In a rational world (where no Leftists reside), one could have a rational argument about where the aforesaid line of Tissue/Baby demarkation should be drawn. At one extreme, there is a tenable argument that once the DNA of the person is established (i.e., at conception), it is a baby. At the other extreme, one could argue for the moment when that baby takes its first breath outside the womb. All sorts of considerations could be brought to bear, but two things are manifest: The Line should be between those two figurative goal posts, and the line should be drawn, not by a court of life-appointed jurists, but by the Peoples' representatives in either Congress or the State Legislatures.

Six: A couple of developments have raised this issue to a higher profile than usual: The conservative shift in the USSC (possibly shifting even a little bit further if the infamous RBG does the Right Thing in a timely manner), and the passage of a couple of state laws that, in effect draw the Tissue/Baby line much earlier than States have dared to draw it since the publication of RvW.

But the Left refuses to have this rational discussion. It insists that the WOMAN (don't you dare call her a "mother") has an absolute right to "remove the tissue" up to and even after the moment of live birth, according to her absolute discretion. Further, THEY DENY THE OPPOSING SIDE EVEN THE RIGHT TO RAISE POINTS IN SUPPORT OF THEIR POSITION. If they take any position other than the Leftist position, they are horrible bigots, misogynists, haters, deniers, and whatever other absurd insults they can gin up.

And note that in this, as in every other "discussion," they present no arguments on their own behalf. It is merely, "If you disagree with us, you are a [choose your ad hominem insult]!"

Leftists are scum.

"One: It is "wrong" to kill babies. Even Leftists mainly agree with this."


I believe this summarizes the OP.

 

[PoliticalChic]

One: It is "wrong" to kill babies. Even Leftists mainly agree with this.

Two: There is nothing wrong with removing "tissue" from the body of the person who wants it removed.

Three: At some point in time between ejaculation and live birth, the product of that copulation ceases being "tissue" and becomes a legal person, for Constitutional purposes.

Four: The position staked out by Justice Blackmun in Roe v. Wade (1973) was that the conversion from Tissue to Baby occurred at the time when the baby became arguably viable: that is, able to survive outside the womb. This was based on his reading of the medical science at the time of the decision. There have been new developments in neonatal care, and one could argue that viability now occurs prior to six months, but that is not relevant to this discussion.

Most of the people howling that they NEVER want Roe v. Wade overturned - that it is a "Super Precedent" - completely reject Justice Blackmun's line of demarkation, and insist that the Tissue/Baby line is drawn AT BIRTH. So they really don't want Roe v. Wade to be the law of the land; they want their own twisted version of RvW to prevail.

Five: Roe v. Wade is completely made-up law, based on a completely made-up Constitutional "right": the Right of Privacy. It is nowhere in the Constitution, and it is, legally speaking, an abomination, because it defies definition. A "right" that is based on a Constitutional Amendment that protects us from eavesdropping and unreasonable searches is trotted out to overturn sodomy laws? To void thousands of years of marriage laws? And then to prevent States from prohibiting abortions which, parenthetically, are forbidden by the Oath of Hippocrates? Good God, is there any better example of a Supreme Court run amok?

In a rational world (where no Leftists reside), one could have a rational argument about where the aforesaid line of Tissue/Baby demarkation should be drawn. At one extreme, there is a tenable argument that once the DNA of the person is established (i.e., at conception), it is a baby. At the other extreme, one could argue for the moment when that baby takes its first breath outside the womb. All sorts of considerations could be brought to bear, but two things are manifest: The Line should be between those two figurative goal posts, and the line should be drawn, not by a court of life-appointed jurists, but by the Peoples' representatives in either Congress or the State Legislatures.

Six: A couple of developments have raised this issue to a higher profile than usual: The conservative shift in the USSC (possibly shifting even a little bit further if the infamous RBG does the Right Thing in a timely manner), and the passage of a couple of state laws that, in effect draw the Tissue/Baby line much earlier than States have dared to draw it since the publication of RvW.

But the Left refuses to have this rational discussion. It insists that the WOMAN (don't you dare call her a "mother") has an absolute right to "remove the tissue" up to and even after the moment of live birth, according to her absolute discretion. Further, THEY DENY THE OPPOSING SIDE EVEN THE RIGHT TO RAISE POINTS IN SUPPORT OF THEIR POSITION. If they take any position other than the Leftist position, they are horrible bigots, misogynists, haters, deniers, and whatever other absurd insults they can gin up.

And note that in this, as in every other "discussion," they present no arguments on their own behalf. It is merely, "If you disagree with us, you are a [choose your ad hominem insult]!"

Leftists are scum.

Darn good summary of the entire issue.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Liberals on abortion: "Safe, legal and rare"

That's it. It is that simple.

A perfect example of the current crop of Liberals....as outlined in the OP:

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.





The Democrat Party....the party of Liberals, .....has no intent to make it rare in any way.


Legal is a play word. It means anything they like.


And certainly not safe for the victim.

 

[Taz]

NorthKoreaChic doesn't want to live in a free society. Maybe she should move back to you know where.

Ripping viable children out of their mothers and selling their body parts to research ghouls is your idea of "free society"? you are one sick fuck, boy.

If you don't like it, don't do it. Like gay marriage, if you're against it, don't marry a gay person.

 

[WillPower]

If you don't like it, don't do it. Like gay marriage, if you're against it, don't marry a gay person.

Fine....let's apply that to other forms of murder. If I decide to throw a cement block off a freeway overpass and it comes through your windshield, it's not my fault you came along when you did. If you don't like it, stay off the freeways.

 

[PoliticalChic]

…the Left in the United States generally accepted legalized abortion…



6. “Unfortunately, many liberals and radicals accepted this view without further question. Perhaps many did know that an eight-week-old fetus has a fully human form. They did not ask whether American slaveholders before the Civil War were right in viewing blacks as less than human and private property; or whether the Nazis were correct in viewing mental patients, Jews, and Gypsies as less human and therefore subject to final solution.




7. …liberals were troubled by evidence that rich women could obtain abortions regardless of the law, by going to careful society doctors or countries where abortion was legal. Why, they asked, should poor women be barred from something the wealthy could have? One might turn this argument on its head by asking why rich children should be denied protection that poor children have.

…pro-life activists did not want abortion to be a class issue one way the other; they wanted to end abortion everywhere, for all classes. And many people who had experienced poverty did not think providing legal abortion was any favor to poor women.” From The Progressive magazine. Abortion: The Left has betrayed the sanctity of life


See that…..there were once Liberals that one could respect.
Now they are simply Bolshevik-lite. "We must rid ourselves once and for all of the Quaker-Papist babble about the sanctity of human life." Leon Trotsky

 

[anynameyouwish]

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.

I fear the dangerous delusions of your brain.....

"
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 proud lib-prog I can assure you that I can analyze rationally and logically the things I support;

1. legalize pot
2. pro gay marriage
3. pro gay rights
4. pro strong military
5. pro death penalty for murderers and traitors
6. anti-religious laws
7. anti -"one nation under god" in our pledge
8. anti religion in schools(except in comparative religion classes)
9. affordable health care
10. affordable education
11. workfare
12. legalize prostitution

I can and have logically and rationally defended each of these positions.

"1.Perhaps you’ve noticed that today the strongest Liberals/Democrats are those with the least ability to analyze what they are supporting."



And I accuse YOU and your fellow moronicons of the same crime!


"I hate liberals"
or
"stick it to liberals"


are NOT logical, rational reasons for supporting or opposing any position.

 

[night_son]

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.

Kirsten Gillibrand compares limiting abortion "rights" to racism. According to the New York Senator, in effect, those who oppose abortion do not have the right to express their views aloud nor have those views heard in the national conversation on the matter. Unsurprisingly, she played the "racism" card, which for many Americans tuned into social media everyday is the ultimate power word for "shush!"

Gillibrand compares limiting abortion rights to racism

Tell us please oh pro-death swami's, if abortion is such a wholesome topic, why must you silence opposition voices? Because: voices of reason. She is actually comparing anti-abortion stance to anti-Semitism. This, my friends is exactly how evil wins.

 

[Taz]

If you don't like it, don't do it. Like gay marriage, if you're against it, don't marry a gay person.

Fine....let's apply that to other forms of murder. If I decide to throw a cement block off a freeway overpass and it comes through your windshield, it's not my fault you came along when you did. If you don't like it, stay off the freeways.

Too bad for you that abortion isn't murder.

 

[WillPower]

Too bad for you that abortion isn't murder.

Too bad you weren't aborted.

 

[beautress]

NorthKoreaChic doesn't want to live in a free society. Maybe she should move back to you know where.

Sez the native American Indian Chief? (I doubt it.)
Political Chic is an asset to America, dear. Put the bong down. Can you say the same for yourself?