Women have the right to control their own bodies.

[Magnificat]

So find another thread to read, Old Man, if this one doesn't float your boat.

No, this one is fine. It's somewhat entertaining to see, yet again, this back and forth going nowhere discussion. Each side is firmly entrenched and immovable.

And what, you didn't like my thought on what can happen if Roe v Wade is overturned?

I'm not sure what all this "leave it to the states" stuff is about. There is nothing wrong with federal legislation to leave abortion to hell alone.

And yet, liberals want to make it legal everywhere. Do you understand the irony?

 

[Tijn Von Ingersleben]

And if they controlled them a little better, we wouldn't need abortions.

Women just get stuck holding the bag. They don't get pregnant by themselves. Could we could include another party that perhaps should control themselves a little better, too?

You gotta open them legs first. Unless it is rape, they have the ultimate control. Sperm is cheap, eggs are precious.

That kind of attitude marches right along with not taking responsibility for your brats.

You see...if it's your body YOUR choice...then it is all the way...no exceptions...right?
Women and logic...forever arch enemies.

 

[Geaux4it]

This argument will rage back and forth till the end of time. Why not just agree to disagree?

Because some of these jokers want to take away women's right to choose.

You mean just like they made it illegal to murder someone? That's been around for countless centuries. Why do you feel that babies should be exempt from this protection?

I do not see the termination of a pregnancy as a murder.

Of course not. If there is a heartbeat, and a tool is used to stop the heartbeat, sorry, thats murder in my book

-Geaux

This is a ten week "baby" in a mother's hand.

Mother you say? Let's review the definition

moth·er
/ˈməT͟Hər/
Learn to pronounce
noun

1. 1.
   a woman in relation to her child or children.
   "she returned to Bristol to nurse her aging mother"
   synonyms: female parent, materfamilias, matriarch; More
   • 
     verb

1. 1.
   bring up (a child) with care and affection.
   "she didn't know how to mother my brother and he was very sensitive"

and the definition of child

child
/CHīld/
Learn to pronounce
noun
noun: child; plural noun: children

1. a young human being below the age of puberty or below the legal age of majority.
   synonyms: youngster, young one, little one, boy, girl; More
   
   • a son or daughter of any age.

You may want to rephrase your statement

-Geaux

 

[Geaux4it]

Here we go again, with a lot of RW nonsense about abortions. Why don't we just get to the bottom line;

!. It has never been illegal for a woman to abort a fetus. It has only been illegal for a person to PERFORM an abortion
2. The SC has ruled that it is an invasion of a woman's privacy to forbid someone to perform an abortion while the fetus is not viable to live on it's own
3. If your goal is to reverse Roe vs. Wade, then the states get to decide.
4. At least 15 states are never going to outlaw abortion under most circumstances
5. For those who don't live in those states, they can travel to them and have an abortion.
6. For those that can't do that, there is now over the counter European drugs that are available by mail with which a woman can induce her own abortion at home, and nobody would even know it..

So, what the hell are the pro-choice people ranting about? Don't like the morals of a woman who decided to abort a child. Tough shit.

To hell with the woman, I'm more concerned about the murdered infant.

In TN, when a prisoner is executed, the death certificate list cause of death as Homicide

Same should be for abortions after a heartbeat is present

-Geaux

"To hell with the woman," is right. Who will be raising that child she cannot afford or is ill prepared to raise? You do understand that parenting is about the most important and life long job any of us will ever do? Who gets stuck doing that 99% of the time if bio Dad is skittering away blaming the woman for opening her legs?

Evidently, those questions do not concern the woman as she was getting her rocks off. Easier just to murder the infant than accept the consequences of her, and her mates, decisions. There are many, many families looking to adopt children.

-Geaux

Evidently didn't concern her partner either.

That's what I said above

-Geaux

 

[CarlinAnnArbor]

And if they controlled them a little better, we wouldn't need abortions.

Women just get stuck holding the bag. They don't get pregnant by themselves. Could we could include another party that perhaps should control themselves a little better, too?

The laws protect women. Just name the father if you're promiscuous slut. If you're married, RAISE YOUR CHILD.

 

[OldLady]

So find another thread to read, Old Man, if this one doesn't float your boat.

No, this one is fine. It's somewhat entertaining to see, yet again, this back and forth going nowhere discussion. Each side is firmly entrenched and immovable.

And what, you didn't like my thought on what can happen if Roe v Wade is overturned?

I'm not sure what all this "leave it to the states" stuff is about. There is nothing wrong with federal legislation to leave abortion to hell alone.

And yet, liberals want to make it legal everywhere. Do you understand the irony?

I think you might have misunderstood my last post.
Of course I think it should be legal everywhere.

 

[Magnificat]

Still waiting for Old Biddy to answer my question.

 

[Geaux4it]

And if they controlled them a little better, we wouldn't need abortions.

Women just get stuck holding the bag. They don't get pregnant by themselves. Could we could include another party that perhaps should control themselves a little better, too?

The laws protect women. Just name the father if you're promiscuous slut. If you're married, RAISE YOUR CHILD.

Agreed. One of my previous employees daughter came up pregnant. She had (7) different paternity test that came back negative.

Sad

-Geaux

 

[Magnificat]

So find another thread to read, Old Man, if this one doesn't float your boat.

No, this one is fine. It's somewhat entertaining to see, yet again, this back and forth going nowhere discussion. Each side is firmly entrenched and immovable.

And what, you didn't like my thought on what can happen if Roe v Wade is overturned?

I'm not sure what all this "leave it to the states" stuff is about. There is nothing wrong with federal legislation to leave abortion to hell alone.

And yet, liberals want to make it legal everywhere. Do you understand the irony?

I think you might have misunderstood my last post.
Of course I think it should be legal everywhere.

So, you admit that you wish to abolish state rights. Got it.

 

[Old Man Grumbles]

I'm not sure what all this "leave it to the states" stuff is about. There is nothing wrong with federal legislation to leave abortion to hell alone.

Prior to Roe v Wade states made the laws individually. There wasn't a federal law on the books. So overturn Roe v Wade and that states are back in control unless or until a federal law is passed.

 

[Dan Stubbs]

Why not simply send a bill to the male and female who had the consensual sex resulting in pregnancy, instead of the taxpayers footing the bill? If one or both are minors, send the bill to the parents. And should they fail to make payment, withhold it from there tax returns. There, less money spent on abortions.

Spoiler: This does not cover cases of rape or incest.

Hate it when you are right.

 

[ThisIsMe]

And if they controlled them a little better, we wouldn't need abortions.

And if people minded their own business we wouldn't be constantly dealing with a plethora of controversies both here and abroad. Why people simply can't just live and let live is beyond me. You talk about others controlling themselves better while you advocate for your control over other people.

Yes, people should mind their own business. The issue of forcing tax payers to participate in peoples' abortions should not even be on the table.

Another lie.

Taxpayers don’t pay for abortions.

Planned parenthood receives government funding, and I'm sure they are saying, "ok, put that government money in the non abortion pile, and the rest into the abortion pile".

Even if they dont currently get federal funds, you can see that dems are trying to overturn the hyde ammendment, and Biden now supports federal funding.

Aside from that, a lot of people dont want their tax money going to a business that performs abortions

 

[Old Man Grumbles]

This argument will rage back and forth till the end of time. Why not just agree to disagree?

Because some of these jokers want to take away women's right to choose.

OK, worse case scenario - SCOTUS overturns Roe v Wade. So, again, for a period of time it is illegal. How long? Only until the next time Democrats control Congress and the White House. They pass and sign into law legislation legalizing abortion in all states, territories and possessions.

Other than that the arguments will never change, or change minds.

They couldn't do that. State rights, don't you know. The federal government has a limited set of powers granted by the Constitution. Everything else is a state right. Abortion is not on the list of federal powers. Sorry.

Since when has that stopped the feds from stepping in and legislating?

 

[Vandalshandle]

And if people minded their own business we wouldn't be constantly dealing with a plethora of controversies both here and abroad. Why people simply can't just live and let live is beyond me. You talk about others controlling themselves better while you advocate for your control over other people.[/QUOTE]
Yes, people should mind their own business. The issue of forcing tax payers to participate in peoples' abortions should not even be on the table.[/QUOTE]
Another lie.

Taxpayers don’t pay for abortions.[/QUOTE]Planned parenthood receives government funding, and I'm sure they are saying, "ok, put that government money in the non abortion pile, and the rest into the abortion pile".

Even if they dont currently get federal funds, you can see that dems are trying to overturn the hyde ammendment, and Biden now supports federal funding.

Aside from that, a lot of people dont want their tax money going to a business that performs abortions[/QUOTE]

I don't want my tax money supporting our military occupying hostile countries when we are not at war.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

And if they controlled them a little better, we wouldn't need abortions.

Women just get stuck holding the bag. They don't get pregnant by themselves. Could we could include another party that perhaps should control themselves a little better, too?

You people CONSTANTLY tell us it's none of our business. Based on that logic alone it is YOUR problem and yours alone no?

 

[ThisIsMe]

And if they controlled them a little better, we wouldn't need abortions.

I am all for women being in control of THEIR bodies. You want a boob job, tummy tuck, butt lift, go for it. The pro-"choice" advocates pretend the fetus is an unnecessary piece of fat.

And the pro-lifers pretend the fetus is a full-fledged person. More importantly, they pretend that a pregnant woman's womb is public property.

What is your definition of a full fledged person?

 

[OldLady]

And if they controlled them a little better, we wouldn't need abortions.

Women just get stuck holding the bag. They don't get pregnant by themselves. Could we could include another party that perhaps should control themselves a little better, too?

You gotta open them legs first. Unless it is rape, they have the ultimate control. Sperm is cheap, eggs are precious.

That kind of attitude marches right along with not taking responsibility for your brats.

You see...if it's your body YOUR choice...then it is all the way...no exceptions...right?
Women and logic...forever arch enemies.

I have been saying it is two people's responsibility, so please don't include me with slogans I haven't chanted.

 

[OldLady]

And if they controlled them a little better, we wouldn't need abortions.

Women just get stuck holding the bag. They don't get pregnant by themselves. Could we could include another party that perhaps should control themselves a little better, too?

You people CONSTANTLY tell us it's none of our business. Based on that logic alone it is YOUR problem and yours alone no?

I am not "you people." I am me. One person. Stick to my arguments or talk to someone else.

 

[OldLady]

Still waiting for Old Biddy to answer my question.

What question was that?

 

[ThisIsMe]

And if they controlled them a little better, we wouldn't need abortions.

And if people minded their own business we wouldn't be constantly dealing with a plethora of controversies both here and abroad. Why people simply can't just live and let live is beyond me. You talk about others controlling themselves better while you advocate for your control over other people.

Yes, people should mind their own business. The issue of forcing tax payers to participate in peoples' abortions should not even be on the table.

Another lie.

Taxpayers don’t pay for abortions.

You confirm your stupidity with every post.

I didn't say they did. The issue has, however, been on the table.

Learn to read.

Wrong.

Taxpayers don’t pay for abortions. Period.

Nothing’s ‘on the table.’

You and other rightwing demagogues attempt to propagate that lie in an effort cloud the issue.

You dont know that for sure. It's easy to take government money and filter it into the PP bank account, at that point, it just becomes part of their budget. One bank account to fund all of their functions. Unless you are suggesting they keep a separate account strictly for government money.