Boycott/ Divest and Pull your College App from All States which violate Our Daughters' Civil Rights

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread has clearly devolved into one religious wingnut posting again and again about how the left is “pro murder” and how women aren’t allowed to have sex for pleasure. Unfortunately, you can’t murder a fetus because it isn’t alive and women can do whatever they want.

I think that due to the history of murdering people for their “cause” (an imaginary person in the sky) religious activists against abortion should be investigated and put on domestic terrorism watch lists.

This thread could be constructive if everyone started from a position that there are competing interests at stake, being the pregnant woman’s liberty and the developing human’s life. At some point during the pregnancy it’s reasonable to prioritize the developing human’s life. As support, most countries ban abortions after a certain number of gestational weeks (and the Roe decision did the same). So we could be talking about where and under what conditions prioritizing the pregnant human’s liberty (and allow termination of the pregnancy) is reasonable. And reasonably that could be drawn in a lot of places—if closer to conception, then perhaps that’s only “reasonable” if there are family assistance programs. That’s all for political debate.

But no— This thread is about bludgeoning the other side with the terms “forced birth” or “pro-murder”. Anyone using those terms doesn’t want to discuss how to reasonably balance the competing interests.

No. There is no compromise. What part of “it’s not your decision to make” is so hard for you to understand?

Don’t want an abortion? Don’t have one. You have no right to force me to carry a fetus if I decide not to. Period. That is the fair and just position since this issue hinges on personal beliefs. It is personal.

I believe that it is my obligation, and indeed the obligation of a sane, moral society, to protect "your fetus" from you and your ill intent.

Then you want civil unrest. You are nothing but a religious crusader.

No, I do not want civil unrest. How in the world do you read that from what I wrote? We, as a moral society, have an obligation to protect and aid the weakest among us. That includes the unborn. If we abandon that obligation, we are no longer a humane people. What's so hard to understand about that?

Of course you want civil unrest because we are telling you directly that you are never going to accept you taking away our rights on issues that are not clear cut right/wrong.

Don’t you understand that I feel just as much an “obligation” to protect innocent people from religious authoritarians like you? But yet I don’t pass laws outlawing your religion or way of life. That’s because I don’t feel a need to control every other human as long as I am allowed to live my life peacefully. The problem is with people like you who refuse to exchange the favor and stay out of my life when I don’t want to have anything at all to do with you.

The result can only be outright hostility since there is no way to reconcile our differences other than “live and let live”. If you refuse to agree to that then we will be fighting for eternity.

A "religious authoritarian?" Please. You have no idea who I am, or what my religious beliefs are, if they even exist. This has nothing to do with religion. You brought up that topic, not me.

So by your post, I am to assume that if you were at the park with your child and saw someone beating the hell out of a two-year-old, you would do nothing, because you believe in "live and let live." Did I get that right? You assume no obligation to help the weak, the vulnerable, those unable to protect themselves from the harm that others can inflict upon them.

You are a seriously disturbed individual.

An embryo or fetus is not a 2 year old. I understand that to you, they are the same but you cannot put that belief on me.

Of course you try to intervene at the playground.

It's not a matter of opinion, your's or mine. It's a matter of science and biology. "Human life," as science defines it, requires 3 things to conceptualize: an egg, a sperm and a host. Once those meet in formation, it is the beginning of personhood. If you don't want your body to serve as a host, you can take steps to prevent that before it becomes one.

Says the person advocating for the rape of ten-year-olds.

DP, but can you show us where this person advocated for 10 year olds to he raped (in the literal sense of the word)?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread has clearly devolved into one religious wingnut posting again and again about how the left is “pro murder” and how women aren’t allowed to have sex for pleasure. Unfortunately, you can’t murder a fetus because it isn’t alive and women can do whatever they want.

I think that due to the history of murdering people for their “cause” (an imaginary person in the sky) religious activists against abortion should be investigated and put on domestic terrorism watch lists.

This thread could be constructive if everyone started from a position that there are competing interests at stake, being the pregnant woman’s liberty and the developing human’s life. At some point during the pregnancy it’s reasonable to prioritize the developing human’s life. As support, most countries ban abortions after a certain number of gestational weeks (and the Roe decision did the same). So we could be talking about where and under what conditions prioritizing the pregnant human’s liberty (and allow termination of the pregnancy) is reasonable. And reasonably that could be drawn in a lot of places—if closer to conception, then perhaps that’s only “reasonable” if there are family assistance programs. That’s all for political debate.

But no— This thread is about bludgeoning the other side with the terms “forced birth” or “pro-murder”. Anyone using those terms doesn’t want to discuss how to reasonably balance the competing interests.

No. There is no compromise. What part of “it’s not your decision to make” is so hard for you to understand?

Don’t want an abortion? Don’t have one. You have no right to force me to carry a fetus if I decide not to. Period. That is the fair and just position since this issue hinges on personal beliefs. It is personal.

I believe that it is my obligation, and indeed the obligation of a sane, moral society, to protect "your fetus" from you and your ill intent.

Then you want civil unrest. You are nothing but a religious crusader.

No, I do not want civil unrest. How in the world do you read that from what I wrote? We, as a moral society, have an obligation to protect and aid the weakest among us. That includes the unborn. If we abandon that obligation, we are no longer a humane people. What's so hard to understand about that?

Of course you want civil unrest because we are telling you directly that you are never going to accept you taking away our rights on issues that are not clear cut right/wrong.

Don’t you understand that I feel just as much an “obligation” to protect innocent people from religious authoritarians like you? But yet I don’t pass laws outlawing your religion or way of life. That’s because I don’t feel a need to control every other human as long as I am allowed to live my life peacefully. The problem is with people like you who refuse to exchange the favor and stay out of my life when I don’t want to have anything at all to do with you.

The result can only be outright hostility since there is no way to reconcile our differences other than “live and let live”. If you refuse to agree to that then we will be fighting for eternity.

A "religious authoritarian?" Please. You have no idea who I am, or what my religious beliefs are, if they even exist. This has nothing to do with religion. You brought up that topic, not me.

So by your post, I am to assume that if you were at the park with your child and saw someone beating the hell out of a two-year-old, you would do nothing, because you believe in "live and let live." Did I get that right? You assume no obligation to help the weak, the vulnerable, those unable to protect themselves from the harm that others can inflict upon them.

You are a seriously disturbed individual.

My point is that reasonable people do not disagree that “beating the hell out of a two-year old” is wrong and abusive. This is not the case for abortion so therfor you should defer to individual belief.

That's not quite how laws work

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread has clearly devolved into one religious wingnut posting again and again about how the left is “pro murder” and how women aren’t allowed to have sex for pleasure. Unfortunately, you can’t murder a fetus because it isn’t alive and women can do whatever they want.

I think that due to the history of murdering people for their “cause” (an imaginary person in the sky) religious activists against abortion should be investigated and put on domestic terrorism watch lists.

This thread could be constructive if everyone started from a position that there are competing interests at stake, being the pregnant woman’s liberty and the developing human’s life. At some point during the pregnancy it’s reasonable to prioritize the developing human’s life. As support, most countries ban abortions after a certain number of gestational weeks (and the Roe decision did the same). So we could be talking about where and under what conditions prioritizing the pregnant human’s liberty (and allow termination of the pregnancy) is reasonable. And reasonably that could be drawn in a lot of places—if closer to conception, then perhaps that’s only “reasonable” if there are family assistance programs. That’s all for political debate.

But no— This thread is about bludgeoning the other side with the terms “forced birth” or “pro-murder”. Anyone using those terms doesn’t want to discuss how to reasonably balance the competing interests.

No. There is no compromise. What part of “it’s not your decision to make” is so hard for you to understand?

Don’t want an abortion? Don’t have one. You have no right to force me to carry a fetus if I decide not to. Period. That is the fair and just position since this issue hinges on personal beliefs. It is personal.

I believe that it is my obligation, and indeed the obligation of a sane, moral society, to protect "your fetus" from you and your ill intent.

Then you want civil unrest. You are nothing but a religious crusader.

No, I do not want civil unrest. How in the world do you read that from what I wrote? We, as a moral society, have an obligation to protect and aid the weakest among us. That includes the unborn. If we abandon that obligation, we are no longer a humane people. What's so hard to understand about that?

Of course you want civil unrest because we are telling you directly that you are never going to accept you taking away our rights on issues that are not clear cut right/wrong.

Don’t you understand that I feel just as much an “obligation” to protect innocent people from religious authoritarians like you? But yet I don’t pass laws outlawing your religion or way of life. That’s because I don’t feel a need to control every other human as long as I am allowed to live my life peacefully. The problem is with people like you who refuse to exchange the favor and stay out of my life when I don’t want to have anything at all to do with you.

The result can only be outright hostility since there is no way to reconcile our differences other than “live and let live”. If you refuse to agree to that then we will be fighting for eternity.

A "religious authoritarian?" Please. You have no idea who I am, or what my religious beliefs are, if they even exist. This has nothing to do with religion. You brought up that topic, not me.

So by your post, I am to assume that if you were at the park with your child and saw someone beating the hell out of a two-year-old, you would do nothing, because you believe in "live and let live." Did I get that right? You assume no obligation to help the weak, the vulnerable, those unable to protect themselves from the harm that others can inflict upon them.

You are a seriously disturbed individual.

An embryo or fetus is not a 2 year old. I understand that to you, they are the same but you cannot put that belief on me.

Of course you try to intervene at the playground.

It's not a matter of opinion, your's or mine. It's a matter of science and biology. "Human life," as science defines it, requires 3 things to conceptualize: an egg, a sperm and a host. Once those meet in formation, it is the beginning of personhood. If you don't want your body to serve as a host, you can take steps to prevent that before it becomes one.

-1. This is oversimplified nonsense.

Which part is nonsense?

[Anonymous]

Get ready to pull Penn abs Haverford off those lists

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread has clearly devolved into one religious wingnut posting again and again about how the left is “pro murder” and how women aren’t allowed to have sex for pleasure. Unfortunately, you can’t murder a fetus because it isn’t alive and women can do whatever they want.

I think that due to the history of murdering people for their “cause” (an imaginary person in the sky) religious activists against abortion should be investigated and put on domestic terrorism watch lists.

This thread could be constructive if everyone started from a position that there are competing interests at stake, being the pregnant woman’s liberty and the developing human’s life. At some point during the pregnancy it’s reasonable to prioritize the developing human’s life. As support, most countries ban abortions after a certain number of gestational weeks (and the Roe decision did the same). So we could be talking about where and under what conditions prioritizing the pregnant human’s liberty (and allow termination of the pregnancy) is reasonable. And reasonably that could be drawn in a lot of places—if closer to conception, then perhaps that’s only “reasonable” if there are family assistance programs. That’s all for political debate.

But no— This thread is about bludgeoning the other side with the terms “forced birth” or “pro-murder”. Anyone using those terms doesn’t want to discuss how to reasonably balance the competing interests.

No. There is no compromise. What part of “it’s not your decision to make” is so hard for you to understand?

Don’t want an abortion? Don’t have one. You have no right to force me to carry a fetus if I decide not to. Period. That is the fair and just position since this issue hinges on personal beliefs. It is personal.

I believe that it is my obligation, and indeed the obligation of a sane, moral society, to protect "your fetus" from you and your ill intent.

Then you want civil unrest. You are nothing but a religious crusader.

No, I do not want civil unrest. How in the world do you read that from what I wrote? We, as a moral society, have an obligation to protect and aid the weakest among us. That includes the unborn. If we abandon that obligation, we are no longer a humane people. What's so hard to understand about that?

Of course you want civil unrest because we are telling you directly that you are never going to accept you taking away our rights on issues that are not clear cut right/wrong.

Don’t you understand that I feel just as much an “obligation” to protect innocent people from religious authoritarians like you? But yet I don’t pass laws outlawing your religion or way of life. That’s because I don’t feel a need to control every other human as long as I am allowed to live my life peacefully. The problem is with people like you who refuse to exchange the favor and stay out of my life when I don’t want to have anything at all to do with you.

The result can only be outright hostility since there is no way to reconcile our differences other than “live and let live”. If you refuse to agree to that then we will be fighting for eternity.

A "religious authoritarian?" Please. You have no idea who I am, or what my religious beliefs are, if they even exist. This has nothing to do with religion. You brought up that topic, not me.

So by your post, I am to assume that if you were at the park with your child and saw someone beating the hell out of a two-year-old, you would do nothing, because you believe in "live and let live." Did I get that right? You assume no obligation to help the weak, the vulnerable, those unable to protect themselves from the harm that others can inflict upon them.

You are a seriously disturbed individual.

An embryo or fetus is not a 2 year old. I understand that to you, they are the same but you cannot put that belief on me.

Of course you try to intervene at the playground.

It's not a matter of opinion, your's or mine. It's a matter of science and biology. "Human life," as science defines it, requires 3 things to conceptualize: an egg, a sperm and a host. Once those meet in formation, it is the beginning of personhood. If you don't want your body to serve as a host, you can take steps to prevent that before it becomes one.

One could say the same about growing human skin cells or stem cells in a lab, sure they are living human cells and in medical science, they are doing things like growing replacement organs from them and one could theoretically clone and grow an entire new person from them but they are actually still a long ways off from personhood and we don't go around calling it murder every time a doctor performs a biopsy or some other routine procedure.

They have a heartbeat and a developing brain??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread has clearly devolved into one religious wingnut posting again and again about how the left is “pro murder” and how women aren’t allowed to have sex for pleasure. Unfortunately, you can’t murder a fetus because it isn’t alive and women can do whatever they want.

I think that due to the history of murdering people for their “cause” (an imaginary person in the sky) religious activists against abortion should be investigated and put on domestic terrorism watch lists.

This thread could be constructive if everyone started from a position that there are competing interests at stake, being the pregnant woman’s liberty and the developing human’s life. At some point during the pregnancy it’s reasonable to prioritize the developing human’s life. As support, most countries ban abortions after a certain number of gestational weeks (and the Roe decision did the same). So we could be talking about where and under what conditions prioritizing the pregnant human’s liberty (and allow termination of the pregnancy) is reasonable. And reasonably that could be drawn in a lot of places—if closer to conception, then perhaps that’s only “reasonable” if there are family assistance programs. That’s all for political debate.

But no— This thread is about bludgeoning the other side with the terms “forced birth” or “pro-murder”. Anyone using those terms doesn’t want to discuss how to reasonably balance the competing interests.

No. There is no compromise. What part of “it’s not your decision to make” is so hard for you to understand?

Don’t want an abortion? Don’t have one. You have no right to force me to carry a fetus if I decide not to. Period. That is the fair and just position since this issue hinges on personal beliefs. It is personal.

I believe that it is my obligation, and indeed the obligation of a sane, moral society, to protect "your fetus" from you and your ill intent.

Then you want civil unrest. You are nothing but a religious crusader.

No, I do not want civil unrest. How in the world do you read that from what I wrote? We, as a moral society, have an obligation to protect and aid the weakest among us. That includes the unborn. If we abandon that obligation, we are no longer a humane people. What's so hard to understand about that?

Of course you want civil unrest because we are telling you directly that you are never going to accept you taking away our rights on issues that are not clear cut right/wrong.

Don’t you understand that I feel just as much an “obligation” to protect innocent people from religious authoritarians like you? But yet I don’t pass laws outlawing your religion or way of life. That’s because I don’t feel a need to control every other human as long as I am allowed to live my life peacefully. The problem is with people like you who refuse to exchange the favor and stay out of my life when I don’t want to have anything at all to do with you.

The result can only be outright hostility since there is no way to reconcile our differences other than “live and let live”. If you refuse to agree to that then we will be fighting for eternity.

A "religious authoritarian?" Please. You have no idea who I am, or what my religious beliefs are, if they even exist. This has nothing to do with religion. You brought up that topic, not me.

So by your post, I am to assume that if you were at the park with your child and saw someone beating the hell out of a two-year-old, you would do nothing, because you believe in "live and let live." Did I get that right? You assume no obligation to help the weak, the vulnerable, those unable to protect themselves from the harm that others can inflict upon them.

You are a seriously disturbed individual.

An embryo or fetus is not a 2 year old. I understand that to you, they are the same but you cannot put that belief on me.

Of course you try to intervene at the playground.

It's not a matter of opinion, your's or mine. It's a matter of science and biology. "Human life," as science defines it, requires 3 things to conceptualize: an egg, a sperm and a host. Once those meet in formation, it is the beginning of personhood. If you don't want your body to serve as a host, you can take steps to prevent that before it becomes one.

Says the person advocating for the rape of ten-year-olds.

DP, but can you show us where this person advocated for 10 year olds to he raped (in the literal sense of the word)?

It is the position of the forced birthers. They favor the rapists of ten-year-olds.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Get ready to pull Penn abs Haverford off those lists

Come on Pennsylvania!!!! Stay free. Get out there and vote against the forced birthers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread has clearly devolved into one religious wingnut posting again and again about how the left is “pro murder” and how women aren’t allowed to have sex for pleasure. Unfortunately, you can’t murder a fetus because it isn’t alive and women can do whatever they want.

I think that due to the history of murdering people for their “cause” (an imaginary person in the sky) religious activists against abortion should be investigated and put on domestic terrorism watch lists.

This thread could be constructive if everyone started from a position that there are competing interests at stake, being the pregnant woman’s liberty and the developing human’s life. At some point during the pregnancy it’s reasonable to prioritize the developing human’s life. As support, most countries ban abortions after a certain number of gestational weeks (and the Roe decision did the same). So we could be talking about where and under what conditions prioritizing the pregnant human’s liberty (and allow termination of the pregnancy) is reasonable. And reasonably that could be drawn in a lot of places—if closer to conception, then perhaps that’s only “reasonable” if there are family assistance programs. That’s all for political debate.

But no— This thread is about bludgeoning the other side with the terms “forced birth” or “pro-murder”. Anyone using those terms doesn’t want to discuss how to reasonably balance the competing interests.

No. There is no compromise. What part of “it’s not your decision to make” is so hard for you to understand?

Don’t want an abortion? Don’t have one. You have no right to force me to carry a fetus if I decide not to. Period. That is the fair and just position since this issue hinges on personal beliefs. It is personal.

I believe that it is my obligation, and indeed the obligation of a sane, moral society, to protect "your fetus" from you and your ill intent.

Then you want civil unrest. You are nothing but a religious crusader.

No, I do not want civil unrest. How in the world do you read that from what I wrote? We, as a moral society, have an obligation to protect and aid the weakest among us. That includes the unborn. If we abandon that obligation, we are no longer a humane people. What's so hard to understand about that?

Of course you want civil unrest because we are telling you directly that you are never going to accept you taking away our rights on issues that are not clear cut right/wrong.

Don’t you understand that I feel just as much an “obligation” to protect innocent people from religious authoritarians like you? But yet I don’t pass laws outlawing your religion or way of life. That’s because I don’t feel a need to control every other human as long as I am allowed to live my life peacefully. The problem is with people like you who refuse to exchange the favor and stay out of my life when I don’t want to have anything at all to do with you.

The result can only be outright hostility since there is no way to reconcile our differences other than “live and let live”. If you refuse to agree to that then we will be fighting for eternity.

A "religious authoritarian?" Please. You have no idea who I am, or what my religious beliefs are, if they even exist. This has nothing to do with religion. You brought up that topic, not me.

So by your post, I am to assume that if you were at the park with your child and saw someone beating the hell out of a two-year-old, you would do nothing, because you believe in "live and let live." Did I get that right? You assume no obligation to help the weak, the vulnerable, those unable to protect themselves from the harm that others can inflict upon them.

You are a seriously disturbed individual.

An embryo or fetus is not a 2 year old. I understand that to you, they are the same but you cannot put that belief on me.

Of course you try to intervene at the playground.

It's not a matter of opinion, your's or mine. It's a matter of science and biology. "Human life," as science defines it, requires 3 things to conceptualize: an egg, a sperm and a host. Once those meet in formation, it is the beginning of personhood. If you don't want your body to serve as a host, you can take steps to prevent that before it becomes one.

In total agreement that the way to reduce abortions is to prevent unwanted pregnancies. Give that everything we got imo.

What you are not understanding is that an abortion ban is just as threatening to a woman that wants to conceive and have a child as one that does not. Reproduction does not fit into your pretty little formula. You sound ignorant with that.

There are so so so so many things that can go wrong. You need to stay out of it if it is not your own pregnancy.

Of course. Agreed. And I agree that abortion should be legal, safe and available when something does go drastically wrong, and the mother's life is endangered. But you and I both know that that is a small fraction of the cases of abortion that are conducted. An "oops," and "inconvenience," a "he's just not into me" does not justify taking human life.

Look up how many people struggle with infertility issues and seek help and get back to me with your small fraction. You sound clueless.

What does this have to do with "oops" abortions? You sound confused.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread has clearly devolved into one religious wingnut posting again and again about how the left is “pro murder” and how women aren’t allowed to have sex for pleasure. Unfortunately, you can’t murder a fetus because it isn’t alive and women can do whatever they want.

I think that due to the history of murdering people for their “cause” (an imaginary person in the sky) religious activists against abortion should be investigated and put on domestic terrorism watch lists.

This thread could be constructive if everyone started from a position that there are competing interests at stake, being the pregnant woman’s liberty and the developing human’s life. At some point during the pregnancy it’s reasonable to prioritize the developing human’s life. As support, most countries ban abortions after a certain number of gestational weeks (and the Roe decision did the same). So we could be talking about where and under what conditions prioritizing the pregnant human’s liberty (and allow termination of the pregnancy) is reasonable. And reasonably that could be drawn in a lot of places—if closer to conception, then perhaps that’s only “reasonable” if there are family assistance programs. That’s all for political debate.

But no— This thread is about bludgeoning the other side with the terms “forced birth” or “pro-murder”. Anyone using those terms doesn’t want to discuss how to reasonably balance the competing interests.

No. There is no compromise. What part of “it’s not your decision to make” is so hard for you to understand?

Don’t want an abortion? Don’t have one. You have no right to force me to carry a fetus if I decide not to. Period. That is the fair and just position since this issue hinges on personal beliefs. It is personal.

I believe that it is my obligation, and indeed the obligation of a sane, moral society, to protect "your fetus" from you and your ill intent.

Then you want civil unrest. You are nothing but a religious crusader.

No, I do not want civil unrest. How in the world do you read that from what I wrote? We, as a moral society, have an obligation to protect and aid the weakest among us. That includes the unborn. If we abandon that obligation, we are no longer a humane people. What's so hard to understand about that?

Of course you want civil unrest because we are telling you directly that you are never going to accept you taking away our rights on issues that are not clear cut right/wrong.

Don’t you understand that I feel just as much an “obligation” to protect innocent people from religious authoritarians like you? But yet I don’t pass laws outlawing your religion or way of life. That’s because I don’t feel a need to control every other human as long as I am allowed to live my life peacefully. The problem is with people like you who refuse to exchange the favor and stay out of my life when I don’t want to have anything at all to do with you.

The result can only be outright hostility since there is no way to reconcile our differences other than “live and let live”. If you refuse to agree to that then we will be fighting for eternity.

A "religious authoritarian?" Please. You have no idea who I am, or what my religious beliefs are, if they even exist. This has nothing to do with religion. You brought up that topic, not me.

So by your post, I am to assume that if you were at the park with your child and saw someone beating the hell out of a two-year-old, you would do nothing, because you believe in "live and let live." Did I get that right? You assume no obligation to help the weak, the vulnerable, those unable to protect themselves from the harm that others can inflict upon them.

You are a seriously disturbed individual.

And you are an advocate of child rape and on the side of child rapists. You are incredibly disgusting.

??? NP, did not follow that at all. Maybe you have a thought process, but… If anything abortion is used to cover up the crimes of child sex offenders.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread has clearly devolved into one religious wingnut posting again and again about how the left is “pro murder” and how women aren’t allowed to have sex for pleasure. Unfortunately, you can’t murder a fetus because it isn’t alive and women can do whatever they want.

I think that due to the history of murdering people for their “cause” (an imaginary person in the sky) religious activists against abortion should be investigated and put on domestic terrorism watch lists.

This thread could be constructive if everyone started from a position that there are competing interests at stake, being the pregnant woman’s liberty and the developing human’s life. At some point during the pregnancy it’s reasonable to prioritize the developing human’s life. As support, most countries ban abortions after a certain number of gestational weeks (and the Roe decision did the same). So we could be talking about where and under what conditions prioritizing the pregnant human’s liberty (and allow termination of the pregnancy) is reasonable. And reasonably that could be drawn in a lot of places—if closer to conception, then perhaps that’s only “reasonable” if there are family assistance programs. That’s all for political debate.

But no— This thread is about bludgeoning the other side with the terms “forced birth” or “pro-murder”. Anyone using those terms doesn’t want to discuss how to reasonably balance the competing interests.

No. There is no compromise. What part of “it’s not your decision to make” is so hard for you to understand?

Don’t want an abortion? Don’t have one. You have no right to force me to carry a fetus if I decide not to. Period. That is the fair and just position since this issue hinges on personal beliefs. It is personal.

I believe that it is my obligation, and indeed the obligation of a sane, moral society, to protect "your fetus" from you and your ill intent.

Then you want civil unrest. You are nothing but a religious crusader.

No, I do not want civil unrest. How in the world do you read that from what I wrote? We, as a moral society, have an obligation to protect and aid the weakest among us. That includes the unborn. If we abandon that obligation, we are no longer a humane people. What's so hard to understand about that?

Of course you want civil unrest because we are telling you directly that you are never going to accept you taking away our rights on issues that are not clear cut right/wrong.

Don’t you understand that I feel just as much an “obligation” to protect innocent people from religious authoritarians like you? But yet I don’t pass laws outlawing your religion or way of life. That’s because I don’t feel a need to control every other human as long as I am allowed to live my life peacefully. The problem is with people like you who refuse to exchange the favor and stay out of my life when I don’t want to have anything at all to do with you.

The result can only be outright hostility since there is no way to reconcile our differences other than “live and let live”. If you refuse to agree to that then we will be fighting for eternity.

A "religious authoritarian?" Please. You have no idea who I am, or what my religious beliefs are, if they even exist. This has nothing to do with religion. You brought up that topic, not me.

So by your post, I am to assume that if you were at the park with your child and saw someone beating the hell out of a two-year-old, you would do nothing, because you believe in "live and let live." Did I get that right? You assume no obligation to help the weak, the vulnerable, those unable to protect themselves from the harm that others can inflict upon them.

You are a seriously disturbed individual.

An embryo or fetus is not a 2 year old. I understand that to you, they are the same but you cannot put that belief on me.

Of course you try to intervene at the playground.

It's not a matter of opinion, your's or mine. It's a matter of science and biology. "Human life," as science defines it, requires 3 things to conceptualize: an egg, a sperm and a host. Once those meet in formation, it is the beginning of personhood. If you don't want your body to serve as a host, you can take steps to prevent that before it becomes one.

One could say the same about growing human skin cells or stem cells in a lab, sure they are living human cells and in medical science, they are doing things like growing replacement organs from them and one could theoretically clone and grow an entire new person from them but they are actually still a long ways off from personhood and we don't go around calling it murder every time a doctor performs a biopsy or some other routine procedure.

No, "one" could not. Human skin cells and stems cells in a lab are not developing persons.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread has clearly devolved into one religious wingnut posting again and again about how the left is “pro murder” and how women aren’t allowed to have sex for pleasure. Unfortunately, you can’t murder a fetus because it isn’t alive and women can do whatever they want.

I think that due to the history of murdering people for their “cause” (an imaginary person in the sky) religious activists against abortion should be investigated and put on domestic terrorism watch lists.

This thread could be constructive if everyone started from a position that there are competing interests at stake, being the pregnant woman’s liberty and the developing human’s life. At some point during the pregnancy it’s reasonable to prioritize the developing human’s life. As support, most countries ban abortions after a certain number of gestational weeks (and the Roe decision did the same). So we could be talking about where and under what conditions prioritizing the pregnant human’s liberty (and allow termination of the pregnancy) is reasonable. And reasonably that could be drawn in a lot of places—if closer to conception, then perhaps that’s only “reasonable” if there are family assistance programs. That’s all for political debate.

But no— This thread is about bludgeoning the other side with the terms “forced birth” or “pro-murder”. Anyone using those terms doesn’t want to discuss how to reasonably balance the competing interests.

No. There is no compromise. What part of “it’s not your decision to make” is so hard for you to understand?

Don’t want an abortion? Don’t have one. You have no right to force me to carry a fetus if I decide not to. Period. That is the fair and just position since this issue hinges on personal beliefs. It is personal.

I believe that it is my obligation, and indeed the obligation of a sane, moral society, to protect "your fetus" from you and your ill intent.

Then you want civil unrest. You are nothing but a religious crusader.

No, I do not want civil unrest. How in the world do you read that from what I wrote? We, as a moral society, have an obligation to protect and aid the weakest among us. That includes the unborn. If we abandon that obligation, we are no longer a humane people. What's so hard to understand about that?

Of course you want civil unrest because we are telling you directly that you are never going to accept you taking away our rights on issues that are not clear cut right/wrong.

Don’t you understand that I feel just as much an “obligation” to protect innocent people from religious authoritarians like you? But yet I don’t pass laws outlawing your religion or way of life. That’s because I don’t feel a need to control every other human as long as I am allowed to live my life peacefully. The problem is with people like you who refuse to exchange the favor and stay out of my life when I don’t want to have anything at all to do with you.

The result can only be outright hostility since there is no way to reconcile our differences other than “live and let live”. If you refuse to agree to that then we will be fighting for eternity.

A "religious authoritarian?" Please. You have no idea who I am, or what my religious beliefs are, if they even exist. This has nothing to do with religion. You brought up that topic, not me.

So by your post, I am to assume that if you were at the park with your child and saw someone beating the hell out of a two-year-old, you would do nothing, because you believe in "live and let live." Did I get that right? You assume no obligation to help the weak, the vulnerable, those unable to protect themselves from the harm that others can inflict upon them.

You are a seriously disturbed individual.

And you are an advocate of child rape and on the side of child rapists. You are incredibly disgusting.

??? NP, did not follow that at all. Maybe you have a thought process, but… If anything abortion is used to cover up the crimes of child sex offenders.

Child rapists usually want to force their victims to carry the pregnancies to term. It’s because they are trying to exert power over their victims. It’s known in criminal justice circles. Therefore, the forced birthers who want raped ten-year-olds to carry to term are siding with child rapists.

Of course we have seen how many GOP politicians actually are child rapists (Roy Moore, etc.) so it tracks that forced birthers side with child rapists.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread has clearly devolved into one religious wingnut posting again and again about how the left is “pro murder” and how women aren’t allowed to have sex for pleasure. Unfortunately, you can’t murder a fetus because it isn’t alive and women can do whatever they want.

I think that due to the history of murdering people for their “cause” (an imaginary person in the sky) religious activists against abortion should be investigated and put on domestic terrorism watch lists.

This thread could be constructive if everyone started from a position that there are competing interests at stake, being the pregnant woman’s liberty and the developing human’s life. At some point during the pregnancy it’s reasonable to prioritize the developing human’s life. As support, most countries ban abortions after a certain number of gestational weeks (and the Roe decision did the same). So we could be talking about where and under what conditions prioritizing the pregnant human’s liberty (and allow termination of the pregnancy) is reasonable. And reasonably that could be drawn in a lot of places—if closer to conception, then perhaps that’s only “reasonable” if there are family assistance programs. That’s all for political debate.

But no— This thread is about bludgeoning the other side with the terms “forced birth” or “pro-murder”. Anyone using those terms doesn’t want to discuss how to reasonably balance the competing interests.

No. There is no compromise. What part of “it’s not your decision to make” is so hard for you to understand?

Don’t want an abortion? Don’t have one. You have no right to force me to carry a fetus if I decide not to. Period. That is the fair and just position since this issue hinges on personal beliefs. It is personal.

I believe that it is my obligation, and indeed the obligation of a sane, moral society, to protect "your fetus" from you and your ill intent.

Then you want civil unrest. You are nothing but a religious crusader.

No, I do not want civil unrest. How in the world do you read that from what I wrote? We, as a moral society, have an obligation to protect and aid the weakest among us. That includes the unborn. If we abandon that obligation, we are no longer a humane people. What's so hard to understand about that?

Of course you want civil unrest because we are telling you directly that you are never going to accept you taking away our rights on issues that are not clear cut right/wrong.

Don’t you understand that I feel just as much an “obligation” to protect innocent people from religious authoritarians like you? But yet I don’t pass laws outlawing your religion or way of life. That’s because I don’t feel a need to control every other human as long as I am allowed to live my life peacefully. The problem is with people like you who refuse to exchange the favor and stay out of my life when I don’t want to have anything at all to do with you.

The result can only be outright hostility since there is no way to reconcile our differences other than “live and let live”. If you refuse to agree to that then we will be fighting for eternity.

A "religious authoritarian?" Please. You have no idea who I am, or what my religious beliefs are, if they even exist. This has nothing to do with religion. You brought up that topic, not me.

So by your post, I am to assume that if you were at the park with your child and saw someone beating the hell out of a two-year-old, you would do nothing, because you believe in "live and let live." Did I get that right? You assume no obligation to help the weak, the vulnerable, those unable to protect themselves from the harm that others can inflict upon them.

You are a seriously disturbed individual.

And you are an advocate of child rape and on the side of child rapists. You are incredibly disgusting.

??? NP, did not follow that at all. Maybe you have a thought process, but… If anything abortion is used to cover up the crimes of child sex offenders.

Child rapists usually want to force their victims to carry the pregnancies to term. It’s because they are trying to exert power over their victims. It’s known in criminal justice circles. Therefore, the forced birthers who want raped ten-year-olds to carry to term are siding with child rapists.

Of course we have seen how many GOP politicians actually are child rapists (Roy Moore, etc.) so it tracks that forced birthers side with child rapists.

Do you really want to discuss who commits rape?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread has clearly devolved into one religious wingnut posting again and again about how the left is “pro murder” and how women aren’t allowed to have sex for pleasure. Unfortunately, you can’t murder a fetus because it isn’t alive and women can do whatever they want.

I think that due to the history of murdering people for their “cause” (an imaginary person in the sky) religious activists against abortion should be investigated and put on domestic terrorism watch lists.

This thread could be constructive if everyone started from a position that there are competing interests at stake, being the pregnant woman’s liberty and the developing human’s life. At some point during the pregnancy it’s reasonable to prioritize the developing human’s life. As support, most countries ban abortions after a certain number of gestational weeks (and the Roe decision did the same). So we could be talking about where and under what conditions prioritizing the pregnant human’s liberty (and allow termination of the pregnancy) is reasonable. And reasonably that could be drawn in a lot of places—if closer to conception, then perhaps that’s only “reasonable” if there are family assistance programs. That’s all for political debate.

But no— This thread is about bludgeoning the other side with the terms “forced birth” or “pro-murder”. Anyone using those terms doesn’t want to discuss how to reasonably balance the competing interests.

No. There is no compromise. What part of “it’s not your decision to make” is so hard for you to understand?

Don’t want an abortion? Don’t have one. You have no right to force me to carry a fetus if I decide not to. Period. That is the fair and just position since this issue hinges on personal beliefs. It is personal.

I believe that it is my obligation, and indeed the obligation of a sane, moral society, to protect "your fetus" from you and your ill intent.

Then you want civil unrest. You are nothing but a religious crusader.

No, I do not want civil unrest. How in the world do you read that from what I wrote? We, as a moral society, have an obligation to protect and aid the weakest among us. That includes the unborn. If we abandon that obligation, we are no longer a humane people. What's so hard to understand about that?

Of course you want civil unrest because we are telling you directly that you are never going to accept you taking away our rights on issues that are not clear cut right/wrong.

Don’t you understand that I feel just as much an “obligation” to protect innocent people from religious authoritarians like you? But yet I don’t pass laws outlawing your religion or way of life. That’s because I don’t feel a need to control every other human as long as I am allowed to live my life peacefully. The problem is with people like you who refuse to exchange the favor and stay out of my life when I don’t want to have anything at all to do with you.

The result can only be outright hostility since there is no way to reconcile our differences other than “live and let live”. If you refuse to agree to that then we will be fighting for eternity.

A "religious authoritarian?" Please. You have no idea who I am, or what my religious beliefs are, if they even exist. This has nothing to do with religion. You brought up that topic, not me.

So by your post, I am to assume that if you were at the park with your child and saw someone beating the hell out of a two-year-old, you would do nothing, because you believe in "live and let live." Did I get that right? You assume no obligation to help the weak, the vulnerable, those unable to protect themselves from the harm that others can inflict upon them.

You are a seriously disturbed individual.

DP. You're starting off with a false premise that everyone is in agreement with you about whatever your view is about when the cells carried by a woman are a person, a life, et cetera and that is what makes you really far off base with your analogy of someone beating up a 2 year old or suggesting that everyone who disagrees with you about that definition is somehow "seriously disturbed." The mere fact that you cannot even accept that there is a valid and legitimate difference of opinion on when life begins, when personhood begins makes you an authoritarian.

Different poster: As a medical professional I would say it is true that fertilization and implantation are pre-req's for any potential for a baby

But Again, IF you are SO , SO, So against any Abortion - the proven way to forestall Abortion and greatly reduce the number of times Abortion is used to forestall an unwanted pregnancy is the type of Increased Sex Education in schools AND readily available birth control they have in the Netherlands where , despite the fact that Abortion is FREE- they still have the lowest Abortion rate in the World:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7971545/

https://abort-report.eu/netherlands/

Your response to these facts is Silence ?? I thought you hate seeing Abortion . Why ???? don't you want to put the effort into what will work.

Banning Abortion will not get the Abortion rate down- In fact, the Abortion rate in America has been steadily coming down year after year since Roe v Wade:

Legal Abortion does NOT increase rate of Abortion, just look: https://www.guttmacher.org/gpr/2019/09/us-abortion-rate-continues-drop-once-again-state-abortion-restrictions-are-not-main

If you want to lower it further, TRULY- IF LESS ABORTION is what You Want , Demand your Politicians:

1) Increase opportunities to obtain free to nearly free Birth control that prevents conception for BOTH genders

2) Put your investment into incentives to pursue education and professional development: subsidized college tuition ( or free- like Canada and European countries )

3) Paid 18 month maternity leave - so that having a baby isn't a poverty inducing decision

4) Free , Nationalized Health Care - so that it is not so daunting to have a child and be sure they get good pre-natal care and pediatric care for the child ( birth to age 18 )

Banning choice just won't work to achieve your goal- when a woman ( or any person for that matter ) feels trapped - they WILL find a way out- legal or illegal or Abortion Pill

So, if you TRULY abhor Abortion- get Busy on the Above positive interventions you could be engaging in- to decrease the amount of times it is a woman's best option

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread has clearly devolved into one religious wingnut posting again and again about how the left is “pro murder” and how women aren’t allowed to have sex for pleasure. Unfortunately, you can’t murder a fetus because it isn’t alive and women can do whatever they want.

I think that due to the history of murdering people for their “cause” (an imaginary person in the sky) religious activists against abortion should be investigated and put on domestic terrorism watch lists.

This thread could be constructive if everyone started from a position that there are competing interests at stake, being the pregnant woman’s liberty and the developing human’s life. At some point during the pregnancy it’s reasonable to prioritize the developing human’s life. As support, most countries ban abortions after a certain number of gestational weeks (and the Roe decision did the same). So we could be talking about where and under what conditions prioritizing the pregnant human’s liberty (and allow termination of the pregnancy) is reasonable. And reasonably that could be drawn in a lot of places—if closer to conception, then perhaps that’s only “reasonable” if there are family assistance programs. That’s all for political debate.

But no— This thread is about bludgeoning the other side with the terms “forced birth” or “pro-murder”. Anyone using those terms doesn’t want to discuss how to reasonably balance the competing interests.

No. There is no compromise. What part of “it’s not your decision to make” is so hard for you to understand?

Don’t want an abortion? Don’t have one. You have no right to force me to carry a fetus if I decide not to. Period. That is the fair and just position since this issue hinges on personal beliefs. It is personal.

I believe that it is my obligation, and indeed the obligation of a sane, moral society, to protect "your fetus" from you and your ill intent.

Then you want civil unrest. You are nothing but a religious crusader.

No, I do not want civil unrest. How in the world do you read that from what I wrote? We, as a moral society, have an obligation to protect and aid the weakest among us. That includes the unborn. If we abandon that obligation, we are no longer a humane people. What's so hard to understand about that?

Of course you want civil unrest because we are telling you directly that you are never going to accept you taking away our rights on issues that are not clear cut right/wrong.

Don’t you understand that I feel just as much an “obligation” to protect innocent people from religious authoritarians like you? But yet I don’t pass laws outlawing your religion or way of life. That’s because I don’t feel a need to control every other human as long as I am allowed to live my life peacefully. The problem is with people like you who refuse to exchange the favor and stay out of my life when I don’t want to have anything at all to do with you.

The result can only be outright hostility since there is no way to reconcile our differences other than “live and let live”. If you refuse to agree to that then we will be fighting for eternity.

A "religious authoritarian?" Please. You have no idea who I am, or what my religious beliefs are, if they even exist. This has nothing to do with religion. You brought up that topic, not me.

So by your post, I am to assume that if you were at the park with your child and saw someone beating the hell out of a two-year-old, you would do nothing, because you believe in "live and let live." Did I get that right? You assume no obligation to help the weak, the vulnerable, those unable to protect themselves from the harm that others can inflict upon them.

You are a seriously disturbed individual.

And you are an advocate of child rape and on the side of child rapists. You are incredibly disgusting.

??? NP, did not follow that at all. Maybe you have a thought process, but… If anything abortion is used to cover up the crimes of child sex offenders.

Child rapists usually want to force their victims to carry the pregnancies to term. It’s because they are trying to exert power over their victims. It’s known in criminal justice circles. Therefore, the forced birthers who want raped ten-year-olds to carry to term are siding with child rapists.

Of course we have seen how many GOP politicians actually are child rapists (Roy Moore, etc.) so it tracks that forced birthers side with child rapists.

Do you really want to discuss who commits rape?

Dp- men

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread has clearly devolved into one religious wingnut posting again and again about how the left is “pro murder” and how women aren’t allowed to have sex for pleasure. Unfortunately, you can’t murder a fetus because it isn’t alive and women can do whatever they want.

I think that due to the history of murdering people for their “cause” (an imaginary person in the sky) religious activists against abortion should be investigated and put on domestic terrorism watch lists.

This thread could be constructive if everyone started from a position that there are competing interests at stake, being the pregnant woman’s liberty and the developing human’s life. At some point during the pregnancy it’s reasonable to prioritize the developing human’s life. As support, most countries ban abortions after a certain number of gestational weeks (and the Roe decision did the same). So we could be talking about where and under what conditions prioritizing the pregnant human’s liberty (and allow termination of the pregnancy) is reasonable. And reasonably that could be drawn in a lot of places—if closer to conception, then perhaps that’s only “reasonable” if there are family assistance programs. That’s all for political debate.

But no— This thread is about bludgeoning the other side with the terms “forced birth” or “pro-murder”. Anyone using those terms doesn’t want to discuss how to reasonably balance the competing interests.

No. There is no compromise. What part of “it’s not your decision to make” is so hard for you to understand?

Don’t want an abortion? Don’t have one. You have no right to force me to carry a fetus if I decide not to. Period. That is the fair and just position since this issue hinges on personal beliefs. It is personal.

I believe that it is my obligation, and indeed the obligation of a sane, moral society, to protect "your fetus" from you and your ill intent.

Then you want civil unrest. You are nothing but a religious crusader.

No, I do not want civil unrest. How in the world do you read that from what I wrote? We, as a moral society, have an obligation to protect and aid the weakest among us. That includes the unborn. If we abandon that obligation, we are no longer a humane people. What's so hard to understand about that?

Of course you want civil unrest because we are telling you directly that you are never going to accept you taking away our rights on issues that are not clear cut right/wrong.

Don’t you understand that I feel just as much an “obligation” to protect innocent people from religious authoritarians like you? But yet I don’t pass laws outlawing your religion or way of life. That’s because I don’t feel a need to control every other human as long as I am allowed to live my life peacefully. The problem is with people like you who refuse to exchange the favor and stay out of my life when I don’t want to have anything at all to do with you.

The result can only be outright hostility since there is no way to reconcile our differences other than “live and let live”. If you refuse to agree to that then we will be fighting for eternity.

A "religious authoritarian?" Please. You have no idea who I am, or what my religious beliefs are, if they even exist. This has nothing to do with religion. You brought up that topic, not me.

So by your post, I am to assume that if you were at the park with your child and saw someone beating the hell out of a two-year-old, you would do nothing, because you believe in "live and let live." Did I get that right? You assume no obligation to help the weak, the vulnerable, those unable to protect themselves from the harm that others can inflict upon them.

You are a seriously disturbed individual.

And you are an advocate of child rape and on the side of child rapists. You are incredibly disgusting.

??? NP, did not follow that at all. Maybe you have a thought process, but… If anything abortion is used to cover up the crimes of child sex offenders.

Child rapists usually want to force their victims to carry the pregnancies to term. It’s because they are trying to exert power over their victims. It’s known in criminal justice circles. Therefore, the forced birthers who want raped ten-year-olds to carry to term are siding with child rapists.

Of course we have seen how many GOP politicians actually are child rapists (Roy Moore, etc.) so it tracks that forced birthers side with child rapists.

Do you really want to discuss who commits rape?

Sure. Men.

Forced birthers support rapists. It’s a fact.