Official Abortion Thread

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Anti-abortion” is such a cliche for enraged incels who want to punish women for sleeping with men other than themselves. How weak. No wonder no one will sleep with you.

Alonso’s half of women polled are pro-life. The percentage between men and women is only 2%. There’s half a chance the people lobbying for pro-life are women.

So it isn’t incels. I’m divorced and dating a great woman. So I’m not some incel. I’ve dated women from all walks of life from Ivy League grad to basic state college, different races and political views. Americans, Israelis, Latino and Europeans. If politics would come up there were plenty of pro-life women.

Why do you think you have any say with what happens to women’s bodies?

I don’t. But almost half of women think the baby has a right to live and not he murdered. As a man if the child is mine I have half a say as wel

Only if you can gestate it in your own body.

Then have protected sex. The amount of failure rates of birth control measures is very small. Women don't like to take responsibility for their own actions, it's seriously an epidemic.

You had sex, the child is both of yours, he gets a say.

He chose not to get a vasectomy or wear a condom, he gets no say.

She chose not to use BC, diaphragm and IUD...he gets a say.

Nope if she chose not to use BC he should have kept his pants zipped. Very irresponsible of him to engage in sex when he knew he wasn’t protected from conceiving or disease. Therefore he doesn’t get to decide what happens to her body.

So you're saying women can't control themselves and the man has the responsibility of keeping his pants zipped up because women are emtionally too imature to do the same...got it. Thanks for clarifying.

And you wonder why there is no woman president.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Anti-abortion” is such a cliche for enraged incels who want to punish women for sleeping with men other than themselves. How weak. No wonder no one will sleep with you.

Alonso’s half of women polled are pro-life. The percentage between men and women is only 2%. There’s half a chance the people lobbying for pro-life are women.

So it isn’t incels. I’m divorced and dating a great woman. So I’m not some incel. I’ve dated women from all walks of life from Ivy League grad to basic state college, different races and political views. Americans, Israelis, Latino and Europeans. If politics would come up there were plenty of pro-life women.

Why do you think you have any say with what happens to women’s bodies?

I don’t. But almost half of women think the baby has a right to live and not he murdered. As a man if the child is mine I have half a say as wel

Only if you can gestate it in your own body.

Then have protected sex. The amount of failure rates of birth control measures is very small. Women don't like to take responsibility for their own actions, it's seriously an epidemic.

You had sex, the child is both of yours, he gets a say.

He chose not to get a vasectomy or wear a condom, he gets no say.

She chose not to use BC, diaphragm and IUD...he gets a say.

Nope if she chose not to use BC he should have kept his pants zipped. Very irresponsible of him to engage in sex when he knew he wasn’t protected from conceiving or disease. Therefore he doesn’t get to decide what happens to her body.

So you're saying women can't control themselves and the man has the responsibility of keeping his pants zipped up because women are emtionally too imature to do the same...got it. Thanks for clarifying.

And you wonder why there is no woman president.

*snort*

This was not an intelligent response.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LOL at the PP saying that “people” shouldn’t be having sex if they aren’t 100% ready to have a child.

Come on, now. We all know you are referring to women. You think that WOMEN shouldn’t be having sex unless they are 100% ready to have a child. Because this reasoning will never deter men from having sex. Ever.

Well yeah the woman has the baby inside her and can only change that with medical intervention. A man - while he shouldn’t - can walk away and no one is the wiser. Might be unfair but it’s pragmstic that the person carrying the baby needs to carry greater responsibility bc there’s always a chance she’ll end up the solo parent. Is your problem that it’s unfair that the woman must carry the child? Bc I think God has something to do with that.

Religion has no place in this argument, separation of church and state. I am an atheist, I equate your god with Santa Claus. I do not require you to live by my morals and I should not have to live by yours. I do not believe that a bunch of cells is more important than my life and my goals for my life. Why don't we worry about all of the children in the foster care system, all of the children being raised in poverty and the children being detained at the border before there is any concern about abortion. Let's show more concern about the children and mothers that are already here.

And if I don't have complete sovereignty over my body, I have no freedom at all. My body, my choice!!!!

PP from directly above, I forgot to add that birth control should be free and available to all!!

Along with an incentive to make people use the free birth control. A boatload if condoms can be within arms reach, but if the man won’t put one on, what does the woman do? you

easy...not have sex with him. Take responsibility for your actions. Hard concept for liberal women I know...but try it some time.

Universal vasectomy policy will ensure men and women reproduce responsibly.

Men register for the selective service to get drafted to go to war.
Women should make the sacrifice and get their tubes tied instead. That way we know people will reproduce responsibility.

Men and women can register for the draft. But you've made extremely clear that you believe the woman is the gatekeeper, so not sure why she needs additional responsibilities. It's men's responsibility that has been missing from the conversation. So, mandatory universal vasectomy at 16.

Wrong...selective service is male only. Nice try.

So what you're saying is women are unable to control themselves and keep their pants on...so the patriarchy has to be the gatekeepers of sex...got it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Let's assume, for a sec, that a fetus is a baby. Fine. In effect, these laws are forcing women to donate their bodies to keep their babies alive. Why, then, does that end at birth? Where are all the laws that will force biological parents to give their body parts to their kids if needed to keep them alive? Where is the law that forces dads to give up blood, pieces of their liver, their kidneys, their lungs, their bone marrow, if their kids need a transplant?

I asked this back on page 33 and never got a response. Pro-forced-birthers, would you support such laws?

Ok, I don’t agree with the AL law, but regarding the above: maybe.
However, pro-abortion folks always argue that it’s ok to kill a fetus but not a born child because only one individual (the mother) can keep the fetus alive, whereas others could take care of a newborn. Likewise, more than one individual could conceivably donate an organ or blood to a child. Can’t have it both ways.

Right - that's always been my issue with abortion: that it forces one person to donate their body to another. And I'd argue that this kind of law is the opposite of having it both ways - it's consistent.

So you're ok with taking someone who doesn't want to donate their kidney to their child and using the power of the state to remove their kidney against their will?

Also: not pro-abortion. I don't have an opinion on someone else's abortion (or, more accurately, my opinion on someone else's abortion is irrelevant). I want them to have the choice. Whether they have the abortion is up to them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Anti-abortion” is such a cliche for enraged incels who want to punish women for sleeping with men other than themselves. How weak. No wonder no one will sleep with you.

Alonso’s half of women polled are pro-life. The percentage between men and women is only 2%. There’s half a chance the people lobbying for pro-life are women.

So it isn’t incels. I’m divorced and dating a great woman. So I’m not some incel. I’ve dated women from all walks of life from Ivy League grad to basic state college, different races and political views. Americans, Israelis, Latino and Europeans. If politics would come up there were plenty of pro-life women.

Why do you think you have any say with what happens to women’s bodies?

I don’t. But almost half of women think the baby has a right to live and not he murdered. As a man if the child is mine I have half a say as wel

Only if you can gestate it in your own body.

Then have protected sex. The amount of failure rates of birth control measures is very small. Women don't like to take responsibility for their own actions, it's seriously an epidemic.

You had sex, the child is both of yours, he gets a say.

He chose not to get a vasectomy or wear a condom, he gets no say.

She chose not to use BC, diaphragm and IUD...he gets a say.

Nope if she chose not to use BC he should have kept his pants zipped. Very irresponsible of him to engage in sex when he knew he wasn’t protected from conceiving or disease. Therefore he doesn’t get to decide what happens to her body.

So you're saying women can't control themselves and the man has the responsibility of keeping his pants zipped up because women are emtionally too imature to do the same...got it. Thanks for clarifying.

And you wonder why there is no woman president.

*snort*

This was not an intelligent response.

The response from the pro-abortion crowd is even more nonsensical.

The man has no say - he should keep his pants sipped. He's irresponsible. I as a women who also engaged in sex at my choosing am not responsible for my actions because...I'm a female. Therefore the man should have the responsibility...

[Anonymous]

Anytime someone uses the term “pro-abortion,” it’s clear they don’t understand the issue well enough to be worth engaging with.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Anytime someone uses the term “pro-abortion,” it’s clear they don’t understand the issue well enough to be worth engaging with.

Similar to the pro-forced-birthers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anytime someone uses the term “pro-abortion,” it’s clear they don’t understand the issue well enough to be worth engaging with.

Similar to the pro-forced-birthers.

Incorrect. The supposed “pro-abortion” people are not advocating for people to have abortions, they are arguing for women to be able to choose for themselves whether to have abortions. “Pro-forced birth” people are, in fact, advocating for women to be forced to continue their pregnancies until they give birth, whether they want to or not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anytime someone uses the term “pro-abortion,” it’s clear they don’t understand the issue well enough to be worth engaging with.

Similar to the pro-forced-birthers.

Incorrect. The supposed “pro-abortion” people are not advocating for people to have abortions, they are arguing for women to be able to choose for themselves whether to have abortions. “Pro-forced birth” people are, in fact, advocating for women to be forced to continue their pregnancies until they give birth, whether they want to or not.

It’s not forcing women to give birth, it’s not allowing the killing of a living fetus. It’s disgusting that it’s even an argument. It is a death. Own it if you want to defend it.

[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:“Anti-abortion” is such a cliche for enraged incels who want to punish women for sleeping with men other than themselves. How weak. No wonder no one will sleep with you.

Alonso’s half of women polled are pro-life. The percentage between men and women is only 2%. There’s half a chance the people lobbying for pro-life are women.

So it isn’t incels. I’m divorced and dating a great woman. So I’m not some incel. I’ve dated women from all walks of life from Ivy League grad to basic state college, different races and political views. Americans, Israelis, Latino and Europeans. If politics would come up there were plenty of pro-life women.

Why do you think you have any say with what happens to women’s bodies?

I don’t. But almost half of women think the baby has a right to live and not he murdered. As a man if the child is mine I have half a say as wel

Only if you can gestate it in your own body.

Then have protected sex. The amount of failure rates of birth control measures is very small. Women don't like to take responsibility for their own actions, it's seriously an epidemic.

You had sex, the child is both of yours, he gets a say.

He chose not to get a vasectomy or wear a condom, he gets no say.

She chose not to use BC, diaphragm and IUD...he gets a say.

Nope if she chose not to use BC he should have kept his pants zipped. Very irresponsible of him to engage in sex when he knew he wasn’t protected from conceiving or disease. Therefore he doesn’t get to decide what happens to her body.

So you're saying women can't control themselves and the man has the responsibility of keeping his pants zipped up because women are emtionally too imature to do the same...got it. Thanks for clarifying.

And you wonder why there is no woman president.

*snort*

This was not an intelligent response.

The response from the pro-abortion crowd is even more nonsensical.

The man has no say - he should keep his pants sipped. He's irresponsible. I as a women who also engaged in sex at my choosing am not responsible for my actions because...I'm a female. Therefore the man should have the responsibility...

Oh, sweetie. Go google “satire.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anytime someone uses the term “pro-abortion,” it’s clear they don’t understand the issue well enough to be worth engaging with.

Similar to the pro-forced-birthers.

Incorrect. The supposed “pro-abortion” people are not advocating for people to have abortions, they are arguing for women to be able to choose for themselves whether to have abortions. “Pro-forced birth” people are, in fact, advocating for women to be forced to continue their pregnancies until they give birth, whether they want to or not.

It’s not forcing women to give birth, it’s not allowing the killing of a living fetus. It’s disgusting that it’s even an argument. It is a death. Own it if you want to defend it.

So what’s the third option between forcing women to give birth and abortion?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anytime someone uses the term “pro-abortion,” it’s clear they don’t understand the issue well enough to be worth engaging with.

Similar to the pro-forced-birthers.

Incorrect. The supposed “pro-abortion” people are not advocating for people to have abortions, they are arguing for women to be able to choose for themselves whether to have abortions. “Pro-forced birth” people are, in fact, advocating for women to be forced to continue their pregnancies until they give birth, whether they want to or not.

It’s not forcing women to give birth, it’s not allowing the killing of a living fetus. It’s disgusting that it’s even an argument. It is a death. Own it if you want to defend it.

So what’s the third option between forcing women to give birth and abortion?

Preventative measures. Widespread easy access to contraceptives. Don’t get pregnant, and if you do and you can’t/don’t want to raise your child, there’s adoption.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anytime someone uses the term “pro-abortion,” it’s clear they don’t understand the issue well enough to be worth engaging with.

Similar to the pro-forced-birthers.

Incorrect. The supposed “pro-abortion” people are not advocating for people to have abortions, they are arguing for women to be able to choose for themselves whether to have abortions. “Pro-forced birth” people are, in fact, advocating for women to be forced to continue their pregnancies until they give birth, whether they want to or not.

It’s not forcing women to give birth, it’s not allowing the killing of a living fetus. It’s disgusting that it’s even an argument. It is a death. Own it if you want to defend it.

Fine. It's the killing of a living fetus. Now you own that it's ALSO forcing unwilling women to carry a pregnancy to term and give birth.

[Anonymous]

If a woman becomes pregnant then absent the health of the mother, rape or incest she needs to be responsible for the consequences of her action in not taking adequate precautions to avoid pregnancy.

Abortion cannot be treated as a form of birth control after the fact.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If a woman becomes pregnant then absent the health of the mother, rape or incest she needs to be responsible for the consequences of her action in not taking adequate precautions to avoid pregnancy.

Abortion cannot be treated as a form of birth control after the fact.

All for this, if it is accompanied by men registering their DNA, and being taxed for the next 18 years, outside of child support.