Pro life or choice? (poll)

[Votto]

I’ve said it and said it and said it again…Trump and Republicans are ******* 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

Both parties need to answer, when does a life get representation from government?

It has never answered that nor wants to.

They would rather speak for those that cannot speak for themselves, which means treat them any way they want.

 

[BrokeLoser]

Both parties need to answer, when does a life get representation from government?

It has never answered that nor wants to.

They would rather speak for those that cannot speak for themselves, which means treat them any way they want.

Politicians have to politic…it’s why I hate all politicians

 

[Votto]

Politicians have to politic…it’s why I hate all politicians

Answering who is an individual is critical to identifying who has rights.

They need to answer the question.

 

[Red Front]

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

After that, the brain is developed to the point that it might be conscious and perhaps feel pain. It's close to being viable outside of the womb, provided it's supported by technology. So I believe society should grant that life certain rights.

Before then, it's a potential rather than an actual human being. The only human being in the equation in early pregnancy is the pregnant woman, who carries that life in her body. She should have the right to end her pregnancy for any reason 16 weeks or less gestation. No one should force her to remain pregnant for nine months, especially when she's been pregnant for 16 weeks or less.

 

[BrokeLoser]

Answering who is an individual is critical to identifying who has rights.

They need to answer the question.

They won’t….we have to just play along in the retardation….We have to say abortions are AWESOME for all liberals in all LibTarded shitholes. Sad but true.

 

[Red Front]

They won’t….we have to just play along in the retardation….We have to say abortions are AWESOME for all liberals in all LibTarded shitholes. Sad but true.

As if you care what is in the wombs of those "libtard-shitholes". Brokerloser is the champion of fetuses in stranger's wombs.

 

[YoursTruly]

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

Hoodrats, wiggers and white trash.

 

[Catsnmeters]

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.

Laws making abortion illegal violate my religious rights.

Why do Republicans not respect those rights?

 

[Libby von H]

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.

NO, it did the opposite.
The 14th Amendment p;rogected the unborn
"When the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted in 1868, the states widely recognized unborn children as persons. Twenty-three states and six territories referred to the fetus as a “child” in their laws prohibiting abortion. Twenty-eight classified abortion as an “offense against the person,” or a functionally equivalent classification. These statutes were enacted in recognition of unborn human beings’ full and equal membership in the human family. In Ohio, the same legislature that ratified the Fourteenth Amendment in January 1867 passed legislation criminalizing abortion at all stages just three months later. Several senators who voted for the Fourteenth Amendment’s ratification sat on the committee that reviewed the anti-abortion bill. They acknowledged in their report that “physicians have now arrived at the unanimous opinion that the foetus in utero is alive from the very moment of conception,” and declared on that basis that abortion “at any stage of existence” is “child-murder.” In light of the historical evidence, there can be little doubt that the original public meaning of the term “person” in 1868 included unborn children."

STO TALKING SUCH SHIT

 

[BrokeLoser]

Laws making abortion illegal violate my religious rights.

Why do Republicans not respect those rights?

We aren’t a nation of evil satanic values…We are a nation that values the sanctity of life. It’s sad that people have to be told that…Nobody had to say this shit during the real America era.

 

[Catsnmeters]

We aren’t a nation of evil satanic values…

I'm not a Satanist.

We are a nation that values the sanctity of life.

Agreed.

It’s sad that people have to be told that…Nobody had to say this shit during the real America era.

That's because abortion was a constitutional right. Now that's changed.

 

[YoursTruly]

We aren’t a nation of evil satanic values…We are a nation that values the sanctity of life. It’s sad that people have to be told that…Nobody had to say this shit during the real America era.

Only certain people value the sanctity of life. I'm not one of them any longer, due to the bad people who are having abortions. And knowing they're only reproducing more bad people. The difference between me and the left is I don't try to confuse the situation with "It's my body" or "It's a small clump of cells, not actually a life" BS.

 

[sartre play]

You have no trouble with a federal ban.

Oct 1999 on Meet the Press, Trump said QUOTE I am very pro choice.
So Trump has again changed his mind in the interest of political power.
Again with the thought of lost votes in ARIZONA he softens his stand.

 

[boevans]

Some of his votes in AZ will now go third party, which only helps Mr. Biden.

 

[YoursTruly]

Oct 1999 on Meet the Press, Trump said QUOTE I am very pro choice.
So Trump has again changed his mind in the interest of political power.
Again with the thought of lost votes in ARIZONA he softens his stand.

He's still a democrat at heart. He only plays a Republican on TV.

 

[DGS49]

The REAL story here is about the Media.

The Supreme Court FINALLY corrected one of the worst decisions in the history of the Court, brought the matter into alignment with the Constitution, and properly shifted the matter back to the States, where the PEOPLES' REPRESENTATIVES can decide the matter according to their best judgment.

This was a HUGE win for DEMOCRACY, at least as it is found in this country.

But the Media had made every conceivable opportunity to

• Cast the Dobbs decision as a disaster for Republicans,
• Deny that the Constitution was served - indeed there are almost NO REFERENCES to the Constitution in coverage,
• Play up every single case where abortion comes up and depict it as a "huge loss" for Republicans, regardless of what the actual case says.

As it turns out, very few people are absolutely pro-life or pro-choice. The only solid thing we have is, almost NOBODY agrees with the formal Democrat position that abortion should be permissible up to and including the moment of live birth.

It is up to the State legislatures. Period. This recent case in Alabama creates a TEMPORARY situation where the legislature will have to work something out, because the archaic law that remains in force is one that very few people are happy with.

This is how democracy works. It is not a "problem" or "a loss for the Republicans."

Unless you are a reporter for a major media player in the U.S. (excluding Fox, of course).

 

[Votto]

The REAL story here is about the Media.

The Supreme Court FINALLY corrected one of the worst decisions in the history of the Court, brought the matter into alignment with the Constitution, and properly shifted the matter back to the States, where the PEOPLES' REPRESENTATIVES can decide the matter according to their best judgment.

This was a HUGE win for DEMOCRACY, at least as it is found in this country.

But the Media had made every conceivable opportunity to

• Cast the Dobbs decision as a disaster for Republicans,
• Deny that the Constitution was served - indeed there are almost NO REFERENCES to the Constitution in coverage,
• Play up every single case where abortion comes up and depict it as a "huge loss" for Republicans, regardless of what the actual case says.

As it turns out, very few people are absolutely pro-life or pro-choice. The only solid thing we have is, almost NOBODY agrees with the formal Democrat position that abortion should be permissible up to and including the moment of live birth.

It is up to the State legislatures. Period. This recent case in Alabama creates a TEMPORARY situation where the legislature will have to work something out, because the archaic law that remains in force is one that very few people are happy with.

This is how democracy works. It is not a "problem" or "a loss for the Republicans."

Unless you are a reporter for a major media player in the U.S. (excluding Fox, of course).

The laws and Constitution of men will never outweigh natural law

Thus, those that disagree with the laws and Constitution of men, such as the Dred Scott Decision, will never be swayed.

Sorry abortionists, the issue has not been put to rest no matter how you dress it up and it never will be. It will forever remain an open sore on the nation that never heals.

 

[YoursTruly]

The REAL story here is about the Media.

The Supreme Court FINALLY corrected one of the worst decisions in the history of the Court, brought the matter into alignment with the Constitution, and properly shifted the matter back to the States, where the PEOPLES' REPRESENTATIVES can decide the matter according to their best judgment.

This was a HUGE win for DEMOCRACY, at least as it is found in this country.

But the Media had made every conceivable opportunity to

• Cast the Dobbs decision as a disaster for Republicans,
• Deny that the Constitution was served - indeed there are almost NO REFERENCES to the Constitution in coverage,
• Play up every single case where abortion comes up and depict it as a "huge loss" for Republicans, regardless of what the actual case says.

As it turns out, very few people are absolutely pro-life or pro-choice. The only solid thing we have is, almost NOBODY agrees with the formal Democrat position that abortion should be permissible up to and including the moment of live birth.

It is up to the State legislatures. Period. This recent case in Alabama creates a TEMPORARY situation where the legislature will have to work something out, because the archaic law that remains in force is one that very few people are happy with.

This is how democracy works. It is not a "problem" or "a loss for the Republicans."

Unless you are a reporter for a major media player in the U.S. (excluding Fox, of course).

The real story of this thread is whether someone is pro choice if they respect states rights on abortion over the life of a child. If you respect states rights, then you respect the choice of women killing their babies. This makes you pro choice simply because you think it's OK for a state to allow the killing of babies.

The media's part on this is another issue all together. Although, I do agree that the media has helped people justify their respect for state laws over abortion.

So many subject changes on this thread so far.

 

[dudmuck]

The real story of this thread is whether someone is pro choice if they respect states rights on abortion over the life of a child. If you respect states rights, then you respect the choice of women killing their babies. This makes you pro choice simply because you think it's OK for a state to allow the killing of babies.

The media's part on this is another issue all together. Although, I do agree that the media has helped people justify their respect for state laws over abortion.

So many subject changes on this thread so far.

 

[sealybobo]

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.

Are there any women on USMB who are pro choice?