Roe v Wade struck down

[Anonymous]

Wow, the “the only moral abortion is my abortion” trope in full bloom here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump's America.

Indeed.
Trump has bragged about overturning Roe.

And project 2025 would take us further into medieval times.

So disgusting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I know Trump is going to try to pivot to being pro-choice. We need to hang Roe around his vigina neck.

I’ve been assured by “both sides”-ing “moderates” on here that no one anywhere cares about abortion, that the ability to make medical decisions and reproductive decisions is a niche issue that hardly anyone ever encounters. Interesting news you post.

And yes, hang this dumb decision on the necks of the GOP. It’s not just Trump, they’re all that bad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wow, the “the only moral abortion is my abortion” trope in full bloom here.

Jokes on these hypocrites: the Christian nationalists among them are serious about erasing women as citizens.

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

How dare those women think they’re people!? say the forced birther men.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Shocker.

[Anonymous]

Women should be able to abort only if the father consents, but a woman shouldn't be able to kill a man's baby because she has a change of heart after consensual intercourse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Women should be able to abort only if the father consents, but a woman shouldn't be able to kill a man's baby because she has a change of heart after consensual intercourse.

You need to keep your sperm to yourself dude.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Women should be able to abort only if the father consents, but a woman shouldn't be able to kill a man's baby because she has a change of heart after consensual intercourse.

Only if the man agrees to gestate it in his own body for 9 months. Then he has a say. Otherwise no. He’s not putting himself at risk for potential death or disfigurement or health problems so he isn’t the one with veto power.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Women should be able to abort only if the father consents, but a woman shouldn't be able to kill a man's baby because she has a change of heart after consensual intercourse.

When one can’t tell if a pp is being a troll or just being honest about their forced birther hatred of women, it says how morally bankrupt the forced birther movement is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Women should be able to abort only if the father consents, but a woman shouldn't be able to kill a man's baby because she has a change of heart after consensual intercourse.

Only if the man agrees to gestate it in his own body for 9 months. Then he has a say. Otherwise no. He’s not putting himself at risk for potential death or disfigurement or health problems so he isn’t the one with veto power.

Women aren’t people in the GOP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Women should be able to abort only if the father consents, but a woman shouldn't be able to kill a man's baby because she has a change of heart after consensual intercourse.

Only if the man agrees to gestate it in his own body for 9 months. Then he has a say. Otherwise no. He’s not putting himself at risk for potential death or disfigurement or health problems so he isn’t the one with veto power.

Surely the life of a child is infinitely more valuable than the inconvenience of carrying a fetus for nine months. On what planet do we equate human life with a temporary medical condition?

If the woman prefers not to risk those complications, she should not engage in intercourse and risk creating a baby she does not want.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Women should be able to abort only if the father consents, but a woman shouldn't be able to kill a man's baby because she has a change of heart after consensual intercourse.

Only if the man agrees to gestate it in his own body for 9 months. Then he has a say. Otherwise no. He’s not putting himself at risk for potential death or disfigurement or health problems so he isn’t the one with veto power.

Surely the life of a child is infinitely more valuable than the inconvenience of carrying a fetus for nine months. On what planet do we equate human life with a temporary medical condition?

If the woman prefers not to risk those complications, she should not engage in intercourse and risk creating a baby she does not want.

Sometimes she does not willfully engage.