The cruelty and misogyny of forced birth politics

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When the baby is already viable, you don’t need to “remain” pregnant. You are no longer needed. So why kill the baby?

Nobody has an abortion past the point of viability, for the most part.

Excellent birth control available for women and men. Or is that too much trouble?

It’s not 100% effective. And people like you are working hard to keep the most effective methods of birth control expensive and inaccessible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When the baby is already viable, you don’t need to “remain” pregnant. You are no longer needed. So why kill the baby?

Nobody has an abortion past the point of viability, for the most part.

Excellent birth control available for women and men. Or is that too much trouble?

Yes, it is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When the baby is already viable, you don’t need to “remain” pregnant. You are no longer needed. So why kill the baby?

You clearly haven’t read this whole thread. Get a clue and learn about the tragic, dangerous and heartbreaking situations that produce the tiny number of abortions of viable fetuses.

+100
I know women who have had to TFMR, or who delivered a "viable" baby at 24 weeks (give or take) only to watch it struggle and die due to complications. I wouldn't wish either of those situations on my worst enemy. These are heartbreaking decisions.
The PP who seems to think women are out there casually aborting viable fetuses doesn't have a clue. Or a heart.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When the baby is already viable, you don’t need to “remain” pregnant. You are no longer needed. So why kill the baby?

Nobody has an abortion past the point of viability, for the most part.

Excellent birth control available for women and men. Or is that too much trouble?

No one except religious fundies disagrees that birth control should be readily available to all and that sex education should include lots of lessons about birth control. The more that is common practice add reality the fewer abortions will take place.

But this thread is about abortion rights.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Until every foster kid has a home, the “but what about adoption” crowd should shut up. They only want white newborns. That’s not pro-life.

That’s so untrue. I know many people who adopted children that were not their own color. I know many, many people who adopted older children. Tons of people.

But “tons” of people is not enough. There are over 400,000 kids in foster care. They need loving homes. If those who are working to take away decisions that only belong with me and my doctor, their stance becomes a tiny bit more credible if they actually attempt to solve a real problem in our country right now and take care of real, live “lives.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When the baby is already viable, you don’t need to “remain” pregnant. You are no longer needed. So why kill the baby?

Nobody has an abortion past the point of viability, for the most part.

Excellent birth control available for women and men. Or is that too much trouble?

Don’t care unless it’s completely free and requires zero parental involvement (for minors).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When the baby is already viable, you don’t need to “remain” pregnant. You are no longer needed. So why kill the baby?

Nobody has an abortion past the point of viability, for the most part.

Nobody? Plenty of babies are “terminated” past the point of viability. When so many loving women are infertile, and able to cover all associated costs, it’s anti feminist not to allow a simple adoption. It would cost you nothing.

It’s so nasty to unnecessarily end the life of your little girl (or boy), just to deny them to survive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When the baby is already viable, you don’t need to “remain” pregnant. You are no longer needed. So why kill the baby?

Nobody has an abortion past the point of viability, for the most part.

Nobody? Plenty of babies are “terminated” past the point of viability. When so many loving women are infertile, and able to cover all associated costs, it’s anti feminist not to allow a simple adoption. It would cost you nothing.

It’s so nasty to unnecessarily end the life of your little girl (or boy), just to deny them to survive.

Citation needed

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When the baby is already viable, you don’t need to “remain” pregnant. You are no longer needed. So why kill the baby?

Nobody has an abortion past the point of viability, for the most part.

Nobody? Plenty of babies are “terminated” past the point of viability. When so many loving women are infertile, and able to cover all associated costs, it’s anti feminist not to allow a simple adoption. It would cost you nothing.

It’s so nasty to unnecessarily end the life of your little girl (or boy), just to deny them to survive.

Troll posting false info.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When the baby is already viable, you don’t need to “remain” pregnant. You are no longer needed. So why kill the baby?

Nobody has an abortion past the point of viability, for the most part.

Nobody? Plenty of babies are “terminated” past the point of viability. When so many loving women are infertile, and able to cover all associated costs, it’s anti feminist not to allow a simple adoption. It would cost you nothing.

It’s so nasty to unnecessarily end the life of your little girl (or boy), just to deny them to survive.

Giving up a child for adoption is traumatic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When the baby is already viable, you don’t need to “remain” pregnant. You are no longer needed. So why kill the baby?

Nobody has an abortion past the point of viability, for the most part.

Nobody? Plenty of babies are “terminated” past the point of viability. When so many loving women are infertile, and able to cover all associated costs, it’s anti feminist not to allow a simple adoption. It would cost you nothing.

It’s so nasty to unnecessarily end the life of your little girl (or boy), just to deny them to survive.

Giving up a child for adoption is traumatic.

I’m sorry those women are infertile. It doesn’t give them the right to force another woman to bear children for them. It doesn’t give them the right to build their happiness and joy by inflicting a primal, gaping wound on another human being.

Perhaps the people who think banning abortion is a solution to infertility need to pray on it and what it might mean for God’s plan rather than try to pass laws to enslave their fellow humans.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We haven't had any abortion laws at all here in Canada for 30 years and the sky hasn't fallen. It it considered a medical procedure decided on between a woman and her doctor and nobody else's business.

This is why we can’t take you unequivocally pro abortion people seriously. It’s the man’s business too — if as the man want to keep the baby I should be able to. In addition, if I as a man don’t want to pay for the baby but the woman wants to keep it, I should have to. Men should have the same rights as women in the matter otherwise women have all the rights, men have none, and the baby that you murdered has none.

Okay, hun. As soon as the fetus can be transferred to your body to carry you go for it.

LOL we all know you would never in a million years agree to lend your body for 9 months to gestate a pregnancy.

Agreed.
No more ending the life of a fetus once it’s viable without its mother.

You can choose not to end the life of a fetus once it’s viable without its mother. I might choose otherwise.

Precisely! It’s ALL about ending the life of the fetus, not about “my body, my choice”.

It’s important to be honest, and you deserve a huge - Thank You! - for your honesty here.

If you care to listen to the science, the fetus doesn’t need its biomother very long at all. So WHY kill it when SO many women are longing to become mothers?

That’s just plain mean and ANTI-feminist! …to deny another woman the opportunity to mother your unwanted fetus.

I’m not a free surrogate. No thanks. If I wanted to be a surrogate I’d choose to be and command tens of thousands of dollars in exchange.

No one said the infertile parents wouldn’t pay you for your trouble. Many of them can afford to pay you quite a bit. You’d also be SAVING yourself $$$$ by not having to pay the abortionist.

The "abortionist" is a medical doctor. You don't have the ability to degrade his credentials or MURDER him as many in your mob do quite regularly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When the baby is already viable, you don’t need to “remain” pregnant. You are no longer needed. So why kill the baby?

Nobody has an abortion past the point of viability, for the most part.

Nobody? Plenty of babies are “terminated” past the point of viability. When so many loving women are infertile, and able to cover all associated costs, it’s anti feminist not to allow a simple adoption. It would cost you nothing.

It’s so nasty to unnecessarily end the life of your little girl (or boy), just to deny them to survive.

Again…do you understand what TFMR means, PP? Do you know anyone who has had to make that heart wrenching decision?
Women terminating after the point of viability often have MEDICAL reasons for doing so. It doesn’t just happen on a whim. It isn’t denying a baby to an infertile couple.
I dealt with infertility myself. You have no idea of what you’re talking about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When the baby is already viable, you don’t need to “remain” pregnant. You are no longer needed. So why kill the baby?

Nobody has an abortion past the point of viability, for the most part.

Nobody? Plenty of babies are “terminated” past the point of viability. When so many loving women are infertile, and able to cover all associated costs, it’s anti feminist not to allow a simple adoption. It would cost you nothing.

It’s so nasty to unnecessarily end the life of your little girl (or boy), just to deny them to survive.

Again…do you understand what TFMR means, PP? Do you know anyone who has had to make that heart wrenching decision?
Women terminating after the point of viability often have MEDICAL reasons for doing so. It doesn’t just happen on a whim. It isn’t denying a baby to an infertile couple.
I dealt with infertility myself. You have no idea of what you’re talking about.

They know. They don’t care. The inflicting the cruelty is the whole point. The treating women like a rented uterus is the point.

Once they accomplish forcing women to give birth, they’ll move on to forcing women to surrender their children. Forced birthers absolutely know that third trimester abortions are rare and horribly sad; they don’t care. They like the agony. Eve’s curse and all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When the baby is already viable, you don’t need to “remain” pregnant. You are no longer needed. So why kill the baby?

Nobody has an abortion past the point of viability, for the most part.

Nobody? Plenty of babies are “terminated” past the point of viability. When so many loving women are infertile, and able to cover all associated costs, it’s anti feminist not to allow a simple adoption. It would cost you nothing.

It’s so nasty to unnecessarily end the life of your little girl (or boy), just to deny them to survive.

Again…do you understand what TFMR means, PP? Do you know anyone who has had to make that heart wrenching decision?
Women terminating after the point of viability often have MEDICAL reasons for doing so. It doesn’t just happen on a whim. It isn’t denying a baby to an infertile couple.
I dealt with infertility myself. You have no idea of what you’re talking about.

This article tells the stories of 3 women who had to make that terrible decision. Those of you who don't understand why an abortion in the 2nd or 3rd trimester can be necessary, please read these stories.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/apr/18/late-term-abortion-experience-donald-trump