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:

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

Not all men and not all groups of men.

[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.

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

I think you're basically on the right track, but some of this is nonsense. For example (bolded), who says it shouldn't be "daunting" to have a child? Any mature, responsible person would be daunted by the idea of being responsible for a new human being for the next 18 years. So what? If you're so fragile that you can't handle being a little "daunted" by this increased responsibility in your life, you're too immature to have a child and -- this is the kicker -- too immature to be having sex in the first place.

[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:

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.

There are many different issues affected by an abortion ban and your judgements about any of them are yours and irrelevant to another woman.

Ironically, these draconian laws will be unlikely to produce many less abortions but probably will serve to drive down the birth rates in the forced birth states.

[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:

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

Not all men and not all groups of men.

White men rape! White supremacy.

[Anonymous]

What an oddly hostile response

I personally didn't need any assistance raising my child, buying a home, obtaining a great Pediatrician , primary, secondary and college education for my child as a SMBC

BUT, I am upper middle class and college educated

I am, in other words, not the demographic who's behavior -to choose an abortion- you have any chance of changing ever

My point: if you truly , truly want more poor, young white teens to NEVER , EVER have an Abortion because you TRULY, TRULY just can't bear the loss of any conceived embryo, then direct your energy and effort towards doing what WILL WORK:

Increased sex education, cheaper and easy access to birth control on one hand

AND

Like ALL of the European countries have had to do to try to shore up their wage earning tax base ( birth rate determines this down the road) ) :https://www.forbes.com/sites/ebauer/2019/08/09/is-sweden-our-fertility-boosting-role-model/?sh=4cae664113cb

* Free Health care

* paid maternity leave of 1 year to 18 months

* nearly free or heavily subsidized child care

I find it very unintelligent and frankly, self defeating of your stated goal ( less abortions), that you claim to " hate the destruction of life" but you ignore and refuse to implement the economic interventions that would encourage more women to have children .

And these groups that spout off on " pro - Life " have similarly been waisting decades thinking they can intimidate women into having more babies- when that won't work
and ignoring social interventions that would work- based on statistically observed facts:

[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:

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.

There are many different issues affected by an abortion ban and your judgements about any of them are yours and irrelevant to another woman.

Ironically, these draconian laws will be unlikely to produce many less abortions but probably will serve to drive down the birth rates in the forced birth states.

Well, they are not really irrelevant anymore, right, because 20+ states are banning abortions and/or returning the issue to the state legislatures. So I guess we all do have a say in this, which is how it should be.

[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:

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.

There are many different issues affected by an abortion ban and your judgements about any of them are yours and irrelevant to another woman.

Ironically, these draconian laws will be unlikely to produce many less abortions but probably will serve to drive down the birth rates in the forced birth states.

Well, they are not really irrelevant anymore, right, because 20+ states are banning abortions and/or returning the issue to the state legislatures. So I guess we all do have a say in this, which is how it should be.

Except you really don't because most women will just end the pregnancy if they feel they must and will find a way to do it as has always been the case. You just make it unsafe and illegal and unjust. But you don't stop it because it is not your decision.

[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:

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.

There are many different issues affected by an abortion ban and your judgements about any of them are yours and irrelevant to another woman.

Ironically, these draconian laws will be unlikely to produce many less abortions but probably will serve to drive down the birth rates in the forced birth states.

Well, they are not really irrelevant anymore, right, because 20+ states are banning abortions and/or returning the issue to the state legislatures. So I guess we all do have a say in this, which is how it should be.

Except you really don't because most women will just end the pregnancy if they feel they must and will find a way to do it as has always been the case. You just make it unsafe and illegal and unjust. But you don't stop it because it is not your decision.

And on top of that, you drive down the birth rate in your state because less women want to go through pregnancy and delivery in those conditions.

[Anonymous]

To the PP, who wrote:
I think you're basically on the right track, but some of this is nonsense. For example (bolded), who says it shouldn't be "daunting" to have a child? Any mature, responsible person would be daunted by the idea of being responsible for a new human being for the next 18 years. So what? If you're so fragile that you can't handle being a little "daunted" by this increased responsibility in your life, you're too immature to have a child and -- this is the kicker -- too immature to be having sex in the first place.

Wow.... I disagree that sexual pleasure should only be reserved for as PP put it, " those mature enough to be responsible for a human being for the next 18 years " and - I think- MOST Americans single men and women would AGREE

After All, as we see both in the Middle East where being sexless, unemployed and male is directly associated with Increased likelihood of becoming politically radicalized into a Jihadi

AND in the USA with this huge rise of Incels engaging in Mass Murder of children in schools and their neighbors at the grocery store or 4t of July parade

To the contrary, I would strongly advocate for :

* increased education about positive body image, positive social relationships in schools
* increased education about healthy intimate and personal relationships in schools

* increased sex education- the Dutch emphasize how to give a woman or your male partner an organism in their sex Ed classes in HS:

https://www.theatlantic.com/family/archive/2018/08/the-benefits-of-starting-sex-ed-at-age-4/568225/

AND, they STILL Have the LOWEST Teen Pregnancy and LOWEST ABORTION Rate and the lowest STD rates in the WORLD

Instead, they have lots of young people with a positive self image, enjoying their sex lives, one of the highest rates of college graduation in the world, low crime and LOW
GUN VIOLENCE

Sex is Good and healthy provided you are educated about self esteem, healthy personal relationships, birth control and have bigger life goals as the guiding force of your life

ALL of which the Pro - Life group could have been advocating for DECADES already... my gosh we could have had Nationalized Health care and Paid maternity leave and Free Child care Decades Ago- not to mention NO INCELL led mass shootings if these " Pro-Lifers" Truly, Truly, valued a high quality Life

[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.

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

In the US, white men commit the most rapes.

[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:

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

In the US, white men commit the most rapes.

Yes and no.

57% rapists are white
27% rapists are black

But the black population in the US is only 12%, meaning they are over-represented in the rapist category. (The percentage of white rapists pretty much tracks with overall white demographics; minority rapists are over-represented.)

[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:

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

In the US, white men commit the most rapes.

Is that a fact? Please provide a source.

[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:

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

In the US, white men commit the most rapes.

Is that a fact? Please provide a source.

RAINN generates stats about sexual violence among other services. Go look at the stats. 57 percent of perpetrators are white.

[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:

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

In the US, white men commit the most rapes.

Is that a fact? Please provide a source.

RAINN generates stats about sexual violence among other services. Go look at the stats. 57 percent of perpetrators are white.

Thanks! Now tell us what percent of the population in the US is comprised by white 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:

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

In the US, white men commit the most rapes.

Is that a fact? Please provide a source.

RAINN generates stats about sexual violence among other services. Go look at the stats. 57 percent of perpetrators are white.

Thanks! Now tell us what percent of the population in the US is comprised by white men?

Do your own research if you think that stat is relevant to overturning Roe.