Women who say they aren't voting on the single issue of abortion 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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What I really find insane is that the same people that lecture others about systemic racism, “trans rights,” LGBT, climate change, and are sanctimonious and holier-than-though, many of those same people support the right to murder in cold blood babies at the 7th, 8th, 9th month of pregnancy. It’s a blood cult.

Very tiresome argument. From someone who probably would vote against free school lunches and free health and dental care for all children under 18. Yes, we know you would. Hypocrite.

Non responsive. My point is that many many people who lecture others about stupid social issue nonsense, those same people support the right to kill infants, defenseless babies, the most defenseless people in our society, at the viable stage of pregnancy. It’s really indefensible. I’m not saying this so you, as you at least support limits after visibility.

The vast majority of Americans including Democrats want to return to the standards of Roe which means abortion up to the point of viability and after that for threats to the mother's health, fetal abnormality, and rape (esp. in the case of children whose pregnancy might not be discovered until week 22 - still second trimester, by the way).

Ok let’s do it. But when republicans try restrictions like that they still get nuked by democrats and pro-choice extremists. And most women have bought the extreme position it seems.

Don't make us laugh. This WAS the standard across the country before anti-abortionists started reducing access to abortion and making all patients get vaginally wanded before an abortion, even minor children, forcing them to look at ultrasounds, forcing them to have a waiting period that many poor women couldn't afford. Republicans have been plotting the demise of abortion access for years and years. They are NOT interested in sticking with the Roe standard and you know it. We all know it. That is so incredibly disingenuous of you to state. Makes you sound like a troll.

Was it the standard in NY, CA, Mass?

Medical professionals could decide together with the patient.

You know damned well that abortion on demand for convenience was available in many blue states up into the last trimester.

Isn't lying like this amoral as well? You're a religious fanatical hypocrite, yeah?

They're are like 3 doctors in the US who even do this, it costs up to 25k, and they're are long lists for people in really tragic circumstances to get this kind of care. The books might allow for this in certain states but the reality is, 3rd trimester abortions for "convenience" are not a thing.

Something often stated but simply not true.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9321603/#:~:text=I%20find%20two%20pathways%20to,continue%3B%20and%20barriers%20to%20abortion%2C

From your article:

wherein the respondent was in the third trimester by the time she was able to surmount the obstacles to abortion she faced, including cost, finding a provider, and stigmatization.

So what this is indicating is that if these women had earlier access to abortion, they wouldn't have had a third trimester abortion. Sounds like that's on conservatives. Sounds about right - cons are driving the third trimester abortions on healthy fetuses by putting up too many obstacles for women who would want one much earlier in their pregnancy.

It disproves the idea that third trimester abortions are solely for fetal abnormalities and “tragic circumstances” and previously claimed. No, they simply are not, and the published literature has been clear on this for over a decade. You’re changing the subject to deflect.

Again - take responsibility. Would these abortions have happened so late if conservatives hadn’t put up so many barriers for women seeking abortions? No. They would not have.

We know this is one of the things anti-abortionists want. They want to prevent women from getting abortions early on and then they say oops, too late. That is your modus operandi. So yes I blame such abortions on anti-abortionists.

Who cares who you blame? The point is that elective third trimester abortions exist and have existed, despite the false claims on this board. Another example was provided of a woman who didn’t know about her pregnancy earlier, had nothing to do with early abortion options.

Own it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't get it. Dems and some R's are advocating for choice, not abortion. Trumpers are advocating for no abortion at any cost, even if the fetus isn't viable for birth or mother's life could be compromised.

Advocating for choice isn't extreme. Forcing only one specific choice in all instances is.

Advocating to “choose” to murder someone who inconvenienced you is, in fact, extreme. People who do this are as bad as school shooters, or worse given that they are doing it to their own children.

Roe v. Wade talked about a right to privacy alongside viability of fetus and which trimester of pregnancy you were in. It's usually a religious view that life starts at conception. Other people consider life to start after a fetus takes on a certain degree of viability. Since reasonable people can disagree on when life starts, the courts under Roe decided to leave it up to individual people and their doctors and/or pastors/rabbis/imams to make this difficult determination. Under pro-choice laws, the government would never tell a pro-life person they must have an abortion, even if there's been incest or if the mother will die. That is your choice. Abortion is never pushed but doctors can discuss the implications of carrying a dangerous pregnancy to term for the mother. Under Trump's abortion bans, doctors can't even share the implications with the mother so she can make her choice. That choice is taken away. And under Trump's abortion bans, one view is imposed on everyone even though the majority of Americans have said they are pro-choice. Pro-choice allows flexibility; it doesn't force abortion.

Trump's abortion ban? Say what now? Trump is not president, he has not banned anything. What kind of leap are you making here?

Trump is going to have consequences for overturning Roe. Just understand that.

Consequences meaning getting re elected.

[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:What I really find insane is that the same people that lecture others about systemic racism, “trans rights,” LGBT, climate change, and are sanctimonious and holier-than-though, many of those same people support the right to murder in cold blood babies at the 7th, 8th, 9th month of pregnancy. It’s a blood cult.

Very tiresome argument. From someone who probably would vote against free school lunches and free health and dental care for all children under 18. Yes, we know you would. Hypocrite.

Non responsive. My point is that many many people who lecture others about stupid social issue nonsense, those same people support the right to kill infants, defenseless babies, the most defenseless people in our society, at the viable stage of pregnancy. It’s really indefensible. I’m not saying this so you, as you at least support limits after visibility.

The vast majority of Americans including Democrats want to return to the standards of Roe which means abortion up to the point of viability and after that for threats to the mother's health, fetal abnormality, and rape (esp. in the case of children whose pregnancy might not be discovered until week 22 - still second trimester, by the way).

Ok let’s do it. But when republicans try restrictions like that they still get nuked by democrats and pro-choice extremists. And most women have bought the extreme position it seems.

Don't make us laugh. This WAS the standard across the country before anti-abortionists started reducing access to abortion and making all patients get vaginally wanded before an abortion, even minor children, forcing them to look at ultrasounds, forcing them to have a waiting period that many poor women couldn't afford. Republicans have been plotting the demise of abortion access for years and years. They are NOT interested in sticking with the Roe standard and you know it. We all know it. That is so incredibly disingenuous of you to state. Makes you sound like a troll.

Was it the standard in NY, CA, Mass?

Medical professionals could decide together with the patient.

You know damned well that abortion on demand for convenience was available in many blue states up into the last trimester.

Isn't lying like this amoral as well? You're a religious fanatical hypocrite, yeah?

They're are like 3 doctors in the US who even do this, it costs up to 25k, and they're are long lists for people in really tragic circumstances to get this kind of care. The books might allow for this in certain states but the reality is, 3rd trimester abortions for "convenience" are not a thing.

Something often stated but simply not true.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9321603/#:~:text=I%20find%20two%20pathways%20to,continue%3B%20and%20barriers%20to%20abortion%2C

From your article:

wherein the respondent was in the third trimester by the time she was able to surmount the obstacles to abortion she faced, including cost, finding a provider, and stigmatization.

So what this is indicating is that if these women had earlier access to abortion, they wouldn't have had a third trimester abortion. Sounds like that's on conservatives. Sounds about right - cons are driving the third trimester abortions on healthy fetuses by putting up too many obstacles for women who would want one much earlier in their pregnancy.

It disproves the idea that third trimester abortions are solely for fetal abnormalities and “tragic circumstances” and previously claimed. No, they simply are not, and the published literature has been clear on this for over a decade. You’re changing the subject to deflect.

Again - take responsibility. Would these abortions have happened so late if conservatives hadn’t put up so many barriers for women seeking abortions? No. They would not have.

We know this is one of the things anti-abortionists want. They want to prevent women from getting abortions early on and then they say oops, too late. That is your modus operandi. So yes I blame such abortions on anti-abortionists.

Who cares who you blame? The point is that elective third trimester abortions exist and have existed, despite the false claims on this board. Another example was provided of a woman who didn’t know about her pregnancy earlier, had nothing to do with early abortion options.

Own it.

Trump is going to have consequences for overturning Roe. That is how it is going to be. Makes no difference if you agree or disagree.

[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:What I really find insane is that the same people that lecture others about systemic racism, “trans rights,” LGBT, climate change, and are sanctimonious and holier-than-though, many of those same people support the right to murder in cold blood babies at the 7th, 8th, 9th month of pregnancy. It’s a blood cult.

Very tiresome argument. From someone who probably would vote against free school lunches and free health and dental care for all children under 18. Yes, we know you would. Hypocrite.

Non responsive. My point is that many many people who lecture others about stupid social issue nonsense, those same people support the right to kill infants, defenseless babies, the most defenseless people in our society, at the viable stage of pregnancy. It’s really indefensible. I’m not saying this so you, as you at least support limits after visibility.

The vast majority of Americans including Democrats want to return to the standards of Roe which means abortion up to the point of viability and after that for threats to the mother's health, fetal abnormality, and rape (esp. in the case of children whose pregnancy might not be discovered until week 22 - still second trimester, by the way).

Ok let’s do it. But when republicans try restrictions like that they still get nuked by democrats and pro-choice extremists. And most women have bought the extreme position it seems.

Don't make us laugh. This WAS the standard across the country before anti-abortionists started reducing access to abortion and making all patients get vaginally wanded before an abortion, even minor children, forcing them to look at ultrasounds, forcing them to have a waiting period that many poor women couldn't afford. Republicans have been plotting the demise of abortion access for years and years. They are NOT interested in sticking with the Roe standard and you know it. We all know it. That is so incredibly disingenuous of you to state. Makes you sound like a troll.

Was it the standard in NY, CA, Mass?

Medical professionals could decide together with the patient.

You know damned well that abortion on demand for convenience was available in many blue states up into the last trimester.

Isn't lying like this amoral as well? You're a religious fanatical hypocrite, yeah?

They're are like 3 doctors in the US who even do this, it costs up to 25k, and they're are long lists for people in really tragic circumstances to get this kind of care. The books might allow for this in certain states but the reality is, 3rd trimester abortions for "convenience" are not a thing.

Something often stated but simply not true.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9321603/#:~:text=I%20find%20two%20pathways%20to,continue%3B%20and%20barriers%20to%20abortion%2C

From your article:

wherein the respondent was in the third trimester by the time she was able to surmount the obstacles to abortion she faced, including cost, finding a provider, and stigmatization.

So what this is indicating is that if these women had earlier access to abortion, they wouldn't have had a third trimester abortion. Sounds like that's on conservatives. Sounds about right - cons are driving the third trimester abortions on healthy fetuses by putting up too many obstacles for women who would want one much earlier in their pregnancy.

It disproves the idea that third trimester abortions are solely for fetal abnormalities and “tragic circumstances” and previously claimed. No, they simply are not, and the published literature has been clear on this for over a decade. You’re changing the subject to deflect.

Again - take responsibility. Would these abortions have happened so late if conservatives hadn’t put up so many barriers for women seeking abortions? No. They would not have.

We know this is one of the things anti-abortionists want. They want to prevent women from getting abortions early on and then they say oops, too late. That is your modus operandi. So yes I blame such abortions on anti-abortionists.

Who cares who you blame? The point is that elective third trimester abortions exist and have existed, despite the false claims on this board. Another example was provided of a woman who didn’t know about her pregnancy earlier, had nothing to do with early abortion options.

Own it.

Trump is going to have consequences for overturning Roe. That is how it is going to be. Makes no difference if you agree or disagree.

That must be why he is leading in the polls lol.

[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:What I really find insane is that the same people that lecture others about systemic racism, “trans rights,” LGBT, climate change, and are sanctimonious and holier-than-though, many of those same people support the right to murder in cold blood babies at the 7th, 8th, 9th month of pregnancy. It’s a blood cult.

Very tiresome argument. From someone who probably would vote against free school lunches and free health and dental care for all children under 18. Yes, we know you would. Hypocrite.

Non responsive. My point is that many many people who lecture others about stupid social issue nonsense, those same people support the right to kill infants, defenseless babies, the most defenseless people in our society, at the viable stage of pregnancy. It’s really indefensible. I’m not saying this so you, as you at least support limits after visibility.

The vast majority of Americans including Democrats want to return to the standards of Roe which means abortion up to the point of viability and after that for threats to the mother's health, fetal abnormality, and rape (esp. in the case of children whose pregnancy might not be discovered until week 22 - still second trimester, by the way).

Ok let’s do it. But when republicans try restrictions like that they still get nuked by democrats and pro-choice extremists. And most women have bought the extreme position it seems.

Don't make us laugh. This WAS the standard across the country before anti-abortionists started reducing access to abortion and making all patients get vaginally wanded before an abortion, even minor children, forcing them to look at ultrasounds, forcing them to have a waiting period that many poor women couldn't afford. Republicans have been plotting the demise of abortion access for years and years. They are NOT interested in sticking with the Roe standard and you know it. We all know it. That is so incredibly disingenuous of you to state. Makes you sound like a troll.

Was it the standard in NY, CA, Mass?

Medical professionals could decide together with the patient.

You know damned well that abortion on demand for convenience was available in many blue states up into the last trimester.

Isn't lying like this amoral as well? You're a religious fanatical hypocrite, yeah?

They're are like 3 doctors in the US who even do this, it costs up to 25k, and they're are long lists for people in really tragic circumstances to get this kind of care. The books might allow for this in certain states but the reality is, 3rd trimester abortions for "convenience" are not a thing.

Something often stated but simply not true.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9321603/#:~:text=I%20find%20two%20pathways%20to,continue%3B%20and%20barriers%20to%20abortion%2C

From your article:

wherein the respondent was in the third trimester by the time she was able to surmount the obstacles to abortion she faced, including cost, finding a provider, and stigmatization.

So what this is indicating is that if these women had earlier access to abortion, they wouldn't have had a third trimester abortion. Sounds like that's on conservatives. Sounds about right - cons are driving the third trimester abortions on healthy fetuses by putting up too many obstacles for women who would want one much earlier in their pregnancy.

It disproves the idea that third trimester abortions are solely for fetal abnormalities and “tragic circumstances” and previously claimed. No, they simply are not, and the published literature has been clear on this for over a decade. You’re changing the subject to deflect.

Again - take responsibility. Would these abortions have happened so late if conservatives hadn’t put up so many barriers for women seeking abortions? No. They would not have.

We know this is one of the things anti-abortionists want. They want to prevent women from getting abortions early on and then they say oops, too late. That is your modus operandi. So yes I blame such abortions on anti-abortionists.

Who cares who you blame? The point is that elective third trimester abortions exist and have existed, despite the false claims on this board. Another example was provided of a woman who didn’t know about her pregnancy earlier, had nothing to do with early abortion options.

Own it.

Because if you do away with the barriers that cons erected then you’ll not have those (already small in number) third trimester abortions on healthy fetuses. Do cons really care about which trimester avortions happen in? No of course not. They just want to ban all abortions — like the poster who wants to ban them from the moment of implantation, as if that is even possible to detect.

You show us how little you actually care about third trimester abortions when you aren’t interested in doing anything that would reduce the requests for them.

[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:What I really find insane is that the same people that lecture others about systemic racism, “trans rights,” LGBT, climate change, and are sanctimonious and holier-than-though, many of those same people support the right to murder in cold blood babies at the 7th, 8th, 9th month of pregnancy. It’s a blood cult.

Very tiresome argument. From someone who probably would vote against free school lunches and free health and dental care for all children under 18. Yes, we know you would. Hypocrite.

Non responsive. My point is that many many people who lecture others about stupid social issue nonsense, those same people support the right to kill infants, defenseless babies, the most defenseless people in our society, at the viable stage of pregnancy. It’s really indefensible. I’m not saying this so you, as you at least support limits after visibility.

The vast majority of Americans including Democrats want to return to the standards of Roe which means abortion up to the point of viability and after that for threats to the mother's health, fetal abnormality, and rape (esp. in the case of children whose pregnancy might not be discovered until week 22 - still second trimester, by the way).

Ok let’s do it. But when republicans try restrictions like that they still get nuked by democrats and pro-choice extremists. And most women have bought the extreme position it seems.

Don't make us laugh. This WAS the standard across the country before anti-abortionists started reducing access to abortion and making all patients get vaginally wanded before an abortion, even minor children, forcing them to look at ultrasounds, forcing them to have a waiting period that many poor women couldn't afford. Republicans have been plotting the demise of abortion access for years and years. They are NOT interested in sticking with the Roe standard and you know it. We all know it. That is so incredibly disingenuous of you to state. Makes you sound like a troll.

Was it the standard in NY, CA, Mass?

Medical professionals could decide together with the patient.

You know damned well that abortion on demand for convenience was available in many blue states up into the last trimester.

Isn't lying like this amoral as well? You're a religious fanatical hypocrite, yeah?

They're are like 3 doctors in the US who even do this, it costs up to 25k, and they're are long lists for people in really tragic circumstances to get this kind of care. The books might allow for this in certain states but the reality is, 3rd trimester abortions for "convenience" are not a thing.

Something often stated but simply not true.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9321603/#:~:text=I%20find%20two%20pathways%20to,continue%3B%20and%20barriers%20to%20abortion%2C

From your article:

wherein the respondent was in the third trimester by the time she was able to surmount the obstacles to abortion she faced, including cost, finding a provider, and stigmatization.

So what this is indicating is that if these women had earlier access to abortion, they wouldn't have had a third trimester abortion. Sounds like that's on conservatives. Sounds about right - cons are driving the third trimester abortions on healthy fetuses by putting up too many obstacles for women who would want one much earlier in their pregnancy.

It disproves the idea that third trimester abortions are solely for fetal abnormalities and “tragic circumstances” and previously claimed. No, they simply are not, and the published literature has been clear on this for over a decade. You’re changing the subject to deflect.

Again - take responsibility. Would these abortions have happened so late if conservatives hadn’t put up so many barriers for women seeking abortions? No. They would not have.

We know this is one of the things anti-abortionists want. They want to prevent women from getting abortions early on and then they say oops, too late. That is your modus operandi. So yes I blame such abortions on anti-abortionists.

Who cares who you blame? The point is that elective third trimester abortions exist and have existed, despite the false claims on this board. Another example was provided of a woman who didn’t know about her pregnancy earlier, had nothing to do with early abortion options.

Own it.

Trump is going to have consequences for overturning Roe. That is how it is going to be. Makes no difference if you agree or disagree.

Trump didn’t overturn Roe vs Wade. SCOTUS did. Ie people who have lifetime immunity to make calls on the constitution to avoid the kinds of recrimination you are making. Trump or no, that unconstitutional judicially- made law is (properly) gone.

[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:What I really find insane is that the same people that lecture others about systemic racism, “trans rights,” LGBT, climate change, and are sanctimonious and holier-than-though, many of those same people support the right to murder in cold blood babies at the 7th, 8th, 9th month of pregnancy. It’s a blood cult.

Very tiresome argument. From someone who probably would vote against free school lunches and free health and dental care for all children under 18. Yes, we know you would. Hypocrite.

Non responsive. My point is that many many people who lecture others about stupid social issue nonsense, those same people support the right to kill infants, defenseless babies, the most defenseless people in our society, at the viable stage of pregnancy. It’s really indefensible. I’m not saying this so you, as you at least support limits after visibility.

The vast majority of Americans including Democrats want to return to the standards of Roe which means abortion up to the point of viability and after that for threats to the mother's health, fetal abnormality, and rape (esp. in the case of children whose pregnancy might not be discovered until week 22 - still second trimester, by the way).

Ok let’s do it. But when republicans try restrictions like that they still get nuked by democrats and pro-choice extremists. And most women have bought the extreme position it seems.

Don't make us laugh. This WAS the standard across the country before anti-abortionists started reducing access to abortion and making all patients get vaginally wanded before an abortion, even minor children, forcing them to look at ultrasounds, forcing them to have a waiting period that many poor women couldn't afford. Republicans have been plotting the demise of abortion access for years and years. They are NOT interested in sticking with the Roe standard and you know it. We all know it. That is so incredibly disingenuous of you to state. Makes you sound like a troll.

Was it the standard in NY, CA, Mass?

Medical professionals could decide together with the patient.

You know damned well that abortion on demand for convenience was available in many blue states up into the last trimester.

Isn't lying like this amoral as well? You're a religious fanatical hypocrite, yeah?

They're are like 3 doctors in the US who even do this, it costs up to 25k, and they're are long lists for people in really tragic circumstances to get this kind of care. The books might allow for this in certain states but the reality is, 3rd trimester abortions for "convenience" are not a thing.

Something often stated but simply not true.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9321603/#:~:text=I%20find%20two%20pathways%20to,continue%3B%20and%20barriers%20to%20abortion%2C

From your article:

wherein the respondent was in the third trimester by the time she was able to surmount the obstacles to abortion she faced, including cost, finding a provider, and stigmatization.

So what this is indicating is that if these women had earlier access to abortion, they wouldn't have had a third trimester abortion. Sounds like that's on conservatives. Sounds about right - cons are driving the third trimester abortions on healthy fetuses by putting up too many obstacles for women who would want one much earlier in their pregnancy.

It disproves the idea that third trimester abortions are solely for fetal abnormalities and “tragic circumstances” and previously claimed. No, they simply are not, and the published literature has been clear on this for over a decade. You’re changing the subject to deflect.

Again - take responsibility. Would these abortions have happened so late if conservatives hadn’t put up so many barriers for women seeking abortions? No. They would not have.

We know this is one of the things anti-abortionists want. They want to prevent women from getting abortions early on and then they say oops, too late. That is your modus operandi. So yes I blame such abortions on anti-abortionists.

Who cares who you blame? The point is that elective third trimester abortions exist and have existed, despite the false claims on this board. Another example was provided of a woman who didn’t know about her pregnancy earlier, had nothing to do with early abortion options.

Own it.

Because if you do away with the barriers that cons erected then you’ll not have those (already small in number) third trimester abortions on healthy fetuses.

This was already disproven on this thread.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:What I really find insane is that the same people that lecture others about systemic racism, “trans rights,” LGBT, climate change, and are sanctimonious and holier-than-though, many of those same people support the right to murder in cold blood babies at the 7th, 8th, 9th month of pregnancy. It’s a blood cult.

Very tiresome argument. From someone who probably would vote against free school lunches and free health and dental care for all children under 18. Yes, we know you would. Hypocrite.

Non responsive. My point is that many many people who lecture others about stupid social issue nonsense, those same people support the right to kill infants, defenseless babies, the most defenseless people in our society, at the viable stage of pregnancy. It’s really indefensible. I’m not saying this so you, as you at least support limits after visibility.

The vast majority of Americans including Democrats want to return to the standards of Roe which means abortion up to the point of viability and after that for threats to the mother's health, fetal abnormality, and rape (esp. in the case of children whose pregnancy might not be discovered until week 22 - still second trimester, by the way).

Ok let’s do it. But when republicans try restrictions like that they still get nuked by democrats and pro-choice extremists. And most women have bought the extreme position it seems.

Don't make us laugh. This WAS the standard across the country before anti-abortionists started reducing access to abortion and making all patients get vaginally wanded before an abortion, even minor children, forcing them to look at ultrasounds, forcing them to have a waiting period that many poor women couldn't afford. Republicans have been plotting the demise of abortion access for years and years. They are NOT interested in sticking with the Roe standard and you know it. We all know it. That is so incredibly disingenuous of you to state. Makes you sound like a troll.

Was it the standard in NY, CA, Mass?

Medical professionals could decide together with the patient.

You know damned well that abortion on demand for convenience was available in many blue states up into the last trimester.

Isn't lying like this amoral as well? You're a religious fanatical hypocrite, yeah?

They're are like 3 doctors in the US who even do this, it costs up to 25k, and they're are long lists for people in really tragic circumstances to get this kind of care. The books might allow for this in certain states but the reality is, 3rd trimester abortions for "convenience" are not a thing.

Something often stated but simply not true.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9321603/#:~:text=I%20find%20two%20pathways%20to,continue%3B%20and%20barriers%20to%20abortion%2C

From your article:

wherein the respondent was in the third trimester by the time she was able to surmount the obstacles to abortion she faced, including cost, finding a provider, and stigmatization.

So what this is indicating is that if these women had earlier access to abortion, they wouldn't have had a third trimester abortion. Sounds like that's on conservatives. Sounds about right - cons are driving the third trimester abortions on healthy fetuses by putting up too many obstacles for women who would want one much earlier in their pregnancy.

It disproves the idea that third trimester abortions are solely for fetal abnormalities and “tragic circumstances” and previously claimed. No, they simply are not, and the published literature has been clear on this for over a decade. You’re changing the subject to deflect.

Again - take responsibility. Would these abortions have happened so late if conservatives hadn’t put up so many barriers for women seeking abortions? No. They would not have.

We know this is one of the things anti-abortionists want. They want to prevent women from getting abortions early on and then they say oops, too late. That is your modus operandi. So yes I blame such abortions on anti-abortionists.

Who cares who you blame? The point is that elective third trimester abortions exist and have existed, despite the false claims on this board. Another example was provided of a woman who didn’t know about her pregnancy earlier, had nothing to do with early abortion options.

Own it.

Trump is going to have consequences for overturning Roe. That is how it is going to be. Makes no difference if you agree or disagree.

That must be why he is leading in the polls lol.

You can lol all day and night. He will pay a price for overturning Roe. It was one of the most unpopular actions ever done by any president ever. That will be reflected in the election as it should be.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Do you not have daughters? Sisters? Nieces? What will you say to them when they need a D&C because they had a miscarriage and aren't able to get one and go into septic shock? What happens when their fallopian tube ruptures due to an ectopic pregnancy and they start bleeding internally? Does nobody think about the ramifications of their actions until it affects them individually? Southern states are trying to ban abortions in all instances - rape, incest, health of the mother. Why would you let your daughters, yourself, your nieces, your sisters, go through such pain? HOW IS THIS NOT IMPORTANT TO YOU!?! Why is your money more important than your health?

There are many, many people in this country who literally do not care about anyone but themselves. Just a complete inability to have empathy for others.

You are speaking in the abstract and they are saying “well my daughter/niece won’t have sex as a teen, get raped or be the victim of incest” and then if that horrible thing does happen - well they will be hopping in a car or on a plane to terminate the pregnancy in a place that still provides that healthcare. They will go home and continue to advocate against other woman’s right to control their own body and health care.

https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2018/aug/25/a-republican-theme-on-abortions-its-ok-for-me-evil-for-thee

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What I really find insane is that the same people that lecture others about systemic racism, “trans rights,” LGBT, climate change, and are sanctimonious and holier-than-though, many of those same people support the right to murder in cold blood babies at the 7th, 8th, 9th month of pregnancy. It’s a blood cult.

Very tiresome argument. From someone who probably would vote against free school lunches and free health and dental care for all children under 18. Yes, we know you would. Hypocrite.

Non responsive. My point is that many many people who lecture others about stupid social issue nonsense, those same people support the right to kill infants, defenseless babies, the most defenseless people in our society, at the viable stage of pregnancy. It’s really indefensible. I’m not saying this so you, as you at least support limits after visibility.

The vast majority of Americans including Democrats want to return to the standards of Roe which means abortion up to the point of viability and after that for threats to the mother's health, fetal abnormality, and rape (esp. in the case of children whose pregnancy might not be discovered until week 22 - still second trimester, by the way).

Ok let’s do it. But when republicans try restrictions like that they still get nuked by democrats and pro-choice extremists. And most women have bought the extreme position it seems.

Don't make us laugh. This WAS the standard across the country before anti-abortionists started reducing access to abortion and making all patients get vaginally wanded before an abortion, even minor children, forcing them to look at ultrasounds, forcing them to have a waiting period that many poor women couldn't afford. Republicans have been plotting the demise of abortion access for years and years. They are NOT interested in sticking with the Roe standard and you know it. We all know it. That is so incredibly disingenuous of you to state. Makes you sound like a troll.

Was it the standard in NY, CA, Mass?

Medical professionals could decide together with the patient.

You know damned well that abortion on demand for convenience was available in many blue states up into the last trimester.

Isn't lying like this amoral as well? You're a religious fanatical hypocrite, yeah?

They're are like 3 doctors in the US who even do this, it costs up to 25k, and they're are long lists for people in really tragic circumstances to get this kind of care. The books might allow for this in certain states but the reality is, 3rd trimester abortions for "convenience" are not a thing.

Something often stated but simply not true.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9321603/#:~:text=I%20find%20two%20pathways%20to,continue%3B%20and%20barriers%20to%20abortion%2C

From your article:

wherein the respondent was in the third trimester by the time she was able to surmount the obstacles to abortion she faced, including cost, finding a provider, and stigmatization.

So what this is indicating is that if these women had earlier access to abortion, they wouldn't have had a third trimester abortion. Sounds like that's on conservatives. Sounds about right - cons are driving the third trimester abortions on healthy fetuses by putting up too many obstacles for women who would want one much earlier in their pregnancy.

It disproves the idea that third trimester abortions are solely for fetal abnormalities and “tragic circumstances” and previously claimed. No, they simply are not, and the published literature has been clear on this for over a decade. You’re changing the subject to deflect.

Again - take responsibility. Would these abortions have happened so late if conservatives hadn’t put up so many barriers for women seeking abortions? No. They would not have.

We know this is one of the things anti-abortionists want. They want to prevent women from getting abortions early on and then they say oops, too late. That is your modus operandi. So yes I blame such abortions on anti-abortionists.

Who cares who you blame? The point is that elective third trimester abortions exist and have existed, despite the false claims on this board. Another example was provided of a woman who didn’t know about her pregnancy earlier, had nothing to do with early abortion options.

Own it.

Trump is going to have consequences for overturning Roe. That is how it is going to be. Makes no difference if you agree or disagree.

That must be why he is leading in the polls lol.

You can lol all day and night. He will pay a price for overturning Roe. It was one of the most unpopular actions ever done by any president ever. That will be reflected in the election as it should be.

Whatever. If this were as big a concern for voters as you wanted it to be, Kamala would be leading nationally and in swing states. She isn’t. So by definition, your viewpoint isn’t as widely shared as you pretend it is. That’s just data.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What I really find insane is that the same people that lecture others about systemic racism, “trans rights,” LGBT, climate change, and are sanctimonious and holier-than-though, many of those same people support the right to murder in cold blood babies at the 7th, 8th, 9th month of pregnancy. It’s a blood cult.

Very tiresome argument. From someone who probably would vote against free school lunches and free health and dental care for all children under 18. Yes, we know you would. Hypocrite.

Non responsive. My point is that many many people who lecture others about stupid social issue nonsense, those same people support the right to kill infants, defenseless babies, the most defenseless people in our society, at the viable stage of pregnancy. It’s really indefensible. I’m not saying this so you, as you at least support limits after visibility.

The vast majority of Americans including Democrats want to return to the standards of Roe which means abortion up to the point of viability and after that for threats to the mother's health, fetal abnormality, and rape (esp. in the case of children whose pregnancy might not be discovered until week 22 - still second trimester, by the way).

Ok let’s do it. But when republicans try restrictions like that they still get nuked by democrats and pro-choice extremists. And most women have bought the extreme position it seems.

Don't make us laugh. This WAS the standard across the country before anti-abortionists started reducing access to abortion and making all patients get vaginally wanded before an abortion, even minor children, forcing them to look at ultrasounds, forcing them to have a waiting period that many poor women couldn't afford. Republicans have been plotting the demise of abortion access for years and years. They are NOT interested in sticking with the Roe standard and you know it. We all know it. That is so incredibly disingenuous of you to state. Makes you sound like a troll.

Was it the standard in NY, CA, Mass?

Medical professionals could decide together with the patient.

You know damned well that abortion on demand for convenience was available in many blue states up into the last trimester.

Isn't lying like this amoral as well? You're a religious fanatical hypocrite, yeah?

They're are like 3 doctors in the US who even do this, it costs up to 25k, and they're are long lists for people in really tragic circumstances to get this kind of care. The books might allow for this in certain states but the reality is, 3rd trimester abortions for "convenience" are not a thing.

Something often stated but simply not true.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9321603/#:~:text=I%20find%20two%20pathways%20to,continue%3B%20and%20barriers%20to%20abortion%2C

From your article:

wherein the respondent was in the third trimester by the time she was able to surmount the obstacles to abortion she faced, including cost, finding a provider, and stigmatization.

So what this is indicating is that if these women had earlier access to abortion, they wouldn't have had a third trimester abortion. Sounds like that's on conservatives. Sounds about right - cons are driving the third trimester abortions on healthy fetuses by putting up too many obstacles for women who would want one much earlier in their pregnancy.

It disproves the idea that third trimester abortions are solely for fetal abnormalities and “tragic circumstances” and previously claimed. No, they simply are not, and the published literature has been clear on this for over a decade. You’re changing the subject to deflect.

Again - take responsibility. Would these abortions have happened so late if conservatives hadn’t put up so many barriers for women seeking abortions? No. They would not have.

We know this is one of the things anti-abortionists want. They want to prevent women from getting abortions early on and then they say oops, too late. That is your modus operandi. So yes I blame such abortions on anti-abortionists.

Who cares who you blame? The point is that elective third trimester abortions exist and have existed, despite the false claims on this board. Another example was provided of a woman who didn’t know about her pregnancy earlier, had nothing to do with early abortion options.

Own it.

Trump is going to have consequences for overturning Roe. That is how it is going to be. Makes no difference if you agree or disagree.

That must be why he is leading in the polls lol.

You can lol all day and night. He will pay a price for overturning Roe. It was one of the most unpopular actions ever done by any president ever. That will be reflected in the election as it should be.

Whatever. If this were as big a concern for voters as you wanted it to be, Kamala would be leading nationally and in swing states. She isn’t. So by definition, your viewpoint isn’t as widely shared as you pretend it is. That’s just data.

Get some of your data from the latest elections in 2022 and beyond. Those are actual votes in actual elections for actual candidates and propositions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Once again forced birthers end up looking like a bag of clowns, all accusations and their own weird Life News takes on what they think pro choice people want, and the flimsiest understanding of any of the issues. Like weird little bits of slag formed in the weak fires of right wing propaganda, they’re off their rockers.

I’m pro-choice but I think in this thread, the extremist death up until birth people look by far the worst.

Timestamp of the poster who said “up until birth”?

The PP who compared the fetus to a liver removal.

I think you misunderstood that poster.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do you not have daughters? Sisters? Nieces? What will you say to them when they need a D&C because they had a miscarriage and aren't able to get one and go into septic shock? What happens when their fallopian tube ruptures due to an ectopic pregnancy and they start bleeding internally? Does nobody think about the ramifications of their actions until it affects them individually? Southern states are trying to ban abortions in all instances - rape, incest, health of the mother. Why would you let your daughters, yourself, your nieces, your sisters, go through such pain? HOW IS THIS NOT IMPORTANT TO YOU!?! Why is your money more important than your health?

Abortion is the top of the iceberg, the tip of the iceberg of MAGA hatred of humanity. It's not a "single issue"

Killing your own child shows love for humanity how?

A fetus isn't a child. Fetch isn't going to happen here. If you believe a fetus is a child, then don't have an abortion yourself. Do not tell me r anyone else what we should do. It is none of your business.

I delivered twins during my 20th week of pregnancy. Don't tell me that at 20 weeks a baby is a "bag of cells." They were tiny little human beings. If you held your children in your arms and watched them die like I did, you would support restrictions on abortion to the first trimester. I don't know the numbers, but I believe a large number of abortions that happen in the second trimester is due to the advent of advanced genetic testing that takes place 18 weeks. To me, it is horrifying that people will terminate pregnancies due to genetic abnormalities like Downs Syndrome, or even the wrong sex.

Then don’t you terminate it. I would terminate a genetically abnormal fetus with zero hesitation. I have a dear friend who has a child with a severe genetic disorder that’s rare enough to sneak through all genetic testing. My friend, living with that child, is 200% clear she’d opt to terminate if she knew ahead of time.

Your friend is a monster.

I am with her 100% and I’d terminate a genetically abnormal fetus without hesitation. Are you aware of statistics on this? Few people volunteer to have disabled, sick children.

I know several families with severely autistic children and I have seen the strain it has put on their marriage, finances and family. Do you advocate eliminating those children as well? What about the very elderly person with dementia who can no longer care for themselves costing thousands of dollars every month to care for. Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger was a eugenicist who supported engineering the population to eliminate groups of people she deemed unfit for society. Hitler also supported eugenics.

I am in favor of giving people a choice of whether a genetically abnormal pregnancy should be carried to term. Yes, I think if severe autism was diagnosable in utero, you’d see people opting to terminate. Remember that statistics consistently show 60 to 90% of pregnant women with genetic abnormalities opt for termination.

Right, the left advocating its right to eugenics.

60 to 90% of women with genetically abnormal pregnancies choose to terminate. That is simply a fact, it’s not something you need to advocate for. Given a choice , the majority of women choose not to give birth to a genetically abnormal baby. This choice holds internationally. You can gnash your teeth all day long about it, but it simply is. You are not going to make women choose to give birth to a genetically abnormal baby.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here’s NPR on another example

That was true for Beth Vial, a college student from Portland, Ore., who didn't learn she was pregnant until she was about 26 weeks along, in the summer of 2017. "I just [burst] out crying. I didn't believe them because I was told that wasn't a possibility for me," she said.

…Doctors in Portland told her she was too far along for an abortion there.

..,

"I was already having a tough time in my life in a lot of other ways and it just felt like one more thing I really couldn't bear, or provide for, and I was panicked, I guess," Vial said.

Vial found a clinic in New Mexico that told her they would end her pregnancy up until 28 weeks — the beginning of the third trimester.

She scrambled, with the help of family, friends and a nonprofit that helps women pay for abortions, to pull together the fee of more than $10,000.

"[There were] a lot of people telling me how they felt about my situation without me asking — friends, family, strangers," Vial said. "I mean, you tell someone that you're seven months pregnant and having an abortion, they've got some things to say."[/quote

So do you think someone like her should be exempt from any restrictions on abortion? Because she didn't know she was pregnant and was having a hard life? Guess what, people go through hard times. Sometimes life feels unfair. How a woman gets to 27 weeks of pregnancy and doesn't know is a mystery, but still, it doesn't mean that killing that baby--which is at that point--is the answer. There's adoption among other solutions. She doesn't just get to have an abortion because her life is hard.

[Anonymous]

She did though.