Nicole Shanahan says RFK Jr. campaign considering joining forces with Trump

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If rfk has any pro choice supporters they sure as heck are not going to vote for trump Vance. Not going to happen.

I will

Kiss your God given reproductive rights good bye.

[Anonymous]

It cracks me up that RFK is getting into the weeds on issues that are directly contrary to the Trump/Project 2025 agenda. This is all a farce.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Alright, this is game over for Harris unfortunately. Trump is almost guaranteed to win now.

Really, it's over because brainworm man and his 3% are quitting?
All of the 3% go to Trump automatically?

Are you even watching Kennedy’s speech? I’m sure some intelligent Dems will wake up after hearing this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What about reproductive rights? That is the critical issue of this election. Why is he joining forces with the destructor of Roe?

Maybe because when looking at abortion, there is another human life who also has rights, and who should not be killed. Funny how pro choicers constantly talk about women's rights, but conviently ignore the rights of the human lives inside the women, half of whom are also females.

No one is having their "reproductive rights" taken away. You still have the right to reproduce. But not the right to take away human life.

Ok so rfk is a forced birther. That is a losing, minority view

You can use whatever clever label you want. But in the end, it is about protecting human life. In the balance, I choose not killing a human life over "forcing" a woman to carry and give birth, at which point she has the right to give up the human life for adoption.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What about reproductive rights? That is the critical issue of this election. Why is he joining forces with the destructor of Roe?

Abortion may be your critical issue, as well as the majority of posters here, but last I heard it ranked third nationally.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It cracks me up that RFK is getting into the weeds on issues that are directly contrary to the Trump/Project 2025 agenda. This is all a farce.

https://www.project2025.com/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What about reproductive rights? That is the critical issue of this election. Why is he joining forces with the destructor of Roe?

Maybe because when looking at abortion, there is another human life who also has rights, and who should not be killed. Funny how pro choicers constantly talk about women's rights, but conviently ignore the rights of the human lives inside the women, half of whom are also females.

No one is having their "reproductive rights" taken away. You still have the right to reproduce. But not the right to take away human life.

Ok so rfk is a forced birther. That is a losing, minority view

You can use whatever clever label you want. But in the end, it is about protecting human life. In the balance, I choose not killing a human life over "forcing" a woman to carry and give birth, at which point she has the right to give up the human life for adoption.

Then why were you ever supporting RFK? He said he supports abortion rights until viability as in Roe. You sound like you were always an anti abortion voter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What about reproductive rights? That is the critical issue of this election. Why is he joining forces with the destructor of Roe?

Maybe because when looking at abortion, there is another human life who also has rights, and who should not be killed. Funny how pro choicers constantly talk about women's rights, but conviently ignore the rights of the human lives inside the women, half of whom are also females.

No one is having their "reproductive rights" taken away. You still have the right to reproduce. But not the right to take away human life.

Ok so rfk is a forced birther. That is a losing, minority view

You can use whatever clever label you want. But in the end, it is about protecting human life. In the balance, I choose not killing a human life over "forcing" a woman to carry and give birth, at which point she has the right to give up the human life for adoption.

You conveniently ignore the women who need an abortion to save their own life or maintain their viability to have children in the future.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What about reproductive rights? That is the critical issue of this election. Why is he joining forces with the destructor of Roe?

Maybe because when looking at abortion, there is another human life who also has rights, and who should not be killed. Funny how pro choicers constantly talk about women's rights, but conviently ignore the rights of the human lives inside the women, half of whom are also females.

No one is having their "reproductive rights" taken away. You still have the right to reproduce. But not the right to take away human life.

When it is a clump of cells, it isn't a human. When it isn't viable, even your previous Bible says that it isn't a fully formed human.

Have you ever watched an abortion? Genuinely wondering. Because I was (and still am) torn on the issue and figured I should see the reality of it. But I’m never going to use bolded term again. Especially when it’s the second trimester.

It was disturbing.

And yes, it was an actual educational video for medical students, not some fear mongering fake right-wing propaganda.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What about reproductive rights? That is the critical issue of this election. Why is he joining forces with the destructor of Roe?

Abortion may be your critical issue, as well as the majority of posters here, but last I heard it ranked third nationally.

it has been a dominant issue since roe was overturned.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What about reproductive rights? That is the critical issue of this election. Why is he joining forces with the destructor of Roe?

Maybe because when looking at abortion, there is another human life who also has rights, and who should not be killed. Funny how pro choicers constantly talk about women's rights, but conviently ignore the rights of the human lives inside the women, half of whom are also females.

No one is having their "reproductive rights" taken away. You still have the right to reproduce. But not the right to take away human life.

When it is a clump of cells, it isn't a human. When it isn't viable, even your previous Bible says that it isn't a fully formed human.

Have you ever watched an abortion? Genuinely wondering. Because I was (and still am) torn on the issue and figured I should see the reality of it. But I’m never going to use bolded term again. Especially when it’s the second trimester.

It was disturbing.

And yes, it was an actual educational video for medical students, not some fear mongering fake right-wing propaganda.

Why were you ever supporting RFK?

[Anonymous]

Thus showing how poor Trump's judgement is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What about reproductive rights? That is the critical issue of this election. Why is he joining forces with the destructor of Roe?

Maybe because when looking at abortion, there is another human life who also has rights, and who should not be killed. Funny how pro choicers constantly talk about women's rights, but conviently ignore the rights of the human lives inside the women, half of whom are also females.

No one is having their "reproductive rights" taken away. You still have the right to reproduce. But not the right to take away human life.

When it is a clump of cells, it isn't a human. When it isn't viable, even your previous Bible says that it isn't a fully formed human.

We are all clumps of cells. If the "clumps" aren't human, then what are they? You just conveniently don't want to recognize fetuses for what they objectively and scientifically are -- early forms of human life. Where do you draw the line? So babies 100 years ago when viability was 30 weeks did not have a right to live, but now they do? What if technology eventually allows babies to be viable at 8 weeks? Will you be OK with no abortion after that point?

And why are you assuming my religion, and making fun of the Bible at the same time? You have no idea what I believe, and my feelings on abortion, which are based on objective science and the bedrock belief that humans should not kills humans, has nothing to do with religion.

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

The only way forced birth will ever gain traction is if we can prove and show that the mortality rate and injury to women is less than 1% for every pregnancy..... Otherwise you were asking a woman to literally risk her life.... Something no man ever has to do for another human being. Not even his own children that are living