The cruelty and misogyny of forced birth politics

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

PP, they know. The cruelty is the point. The suffering is the point. If God didn’t want you to suffer, he wouldn’t have made you suffer. Redemption through agony. The whole mentally disturbed works.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

PP, they know. The cruelty is the point. The suffering is the point. If God didn’t want you to suffer, he wouldn’t have made you suffer. Redemption through agony. The whole mentally disturbed works.

Still good of the PP to find and post. There are those voters who have just been suckered in by forced birth propaganda and don’t understand what they’re doing to their fellow women. I hope those voters who would call themselves “pro life” read the link.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

PP, they know. The cruelty is the point. The suffering is the point. If God didn’t want you to suffer, he wouldn’t have made you suffer. Redemption through agony. The whole mentally disturbed works.

Still good of the PP to find and post. There are those voters who have just been suckered in by forced birth propaganda and don’t understand what they’re doing to their fellow women. I hope those voters who would call themselves “pro life” read the link.

And I’m saying it’s a hopeless cause. They know the facts and have decided it’s worth 1,000 women suffering if it prevents just a single slut from casually aborting a healthy, blond haired blue eyed fetus.

Plus, many of them would carry to term if faced with the same circumstances. I think it’s abhorrent that they would risk their own lives and force that kind of suffering on something they proclaim to love, but they really do believe in purification through pain. They also are probably holding out way too much hope for a so-called miracle.

[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.

Killing and getting all the child’s parts out of me would a million times more traumatic. Women have been giving birth and mothering their precious babies since the beginning of time.
But women in crisis situations deserve options that don’t leave her to terminate the baby when she doesn’t really want to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Killing and getting all the child’s parts out of me would a million times more traumatic. Women have been giving birth and mothering their precious babies since the beginning of time.
But women in crisis situations deserve options that don’t leave her to terminate the baby when she doesn’t really want to.

Women don’t regret their abortions.
You are right. Women in crisis deserve options.
That includes choosing to no longer be pregnant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Killing and getting all the child’s parts out of me would a million times more traumatic. Women have been giving birth and mothering their precious babies since the beginning of time.
But women in crisis situations deserve options that don’t leave her to terminate the baby when she doesn’t really want to.

Women don’t regret their abortions.
You are right. Women in crisis deserve options.
That includes choosing to no longer be pregnant.

Wear a condom. Or don’t have sex. Problem solved.

[Anonymous]

Wear a condom. Or don’t have sex. Problem solved.

Saying this on every page of this thread does not make your statement true. You have failed to absorb the fact that women do not wear condoms. Other birth control has a rate of failure. And some women are raped or impregnated against their will. I suppose you believe that sex is only for procreation. You must be a bundle of neurosis. You're probably married to one of those GOP pedophiles and that's why you endure sex so infrequently. He's just not into you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Killing and getting all the child’s parts out of me would a million times more traumatic. Women have been giving birth and mothering their precious babies since the beginning of time.
But women in crisis situations deserve options that don’t leave her to terminate the baby when she doesn’t really want to.

Women don’t regret their abortions.
You are right. Women in crisis deserve options.
That includes choosing to no longer be pregnant.

Wear a condom. Or don’t have sex. Problem solved.

Unwanted pregnancies happen. That is reality.

Wanted pregnancies happen but the baby isn’t always healthy. That’s also reality.

When you can acknowledge reality please come back to have an adult conversation. Until then, sit TF down.

[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.

Stop lying. It would cost you body autonomy, physical discomfort and pain, time off work/school, possibly social standing, possibly some relationships, possibly your mental health, a few women would lose their future fertility due to complications from a pregnancy that didn’t even yield a child they were going to raise themselves, and most importantly: it would cost some women their lives. There are still women who die in childbirth. There are women who are murdered by sexual partners who don’t want a baby.

I suffer from infertility and I would never want another woman to be coerced into continuing an unwanted pregnancy just so I could benefit from her situation. You don’t speak for “loving women who are infertile.”

[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.

Stop lying. It would cost you body autonomy, physical discomfort and pain, time off work/school, possibly social standing, possibly some relationships, possibly your mental health, a few women would lose their future fertility due to complications from a pregnancy that didn’t even yield a child they were going to raise themselves, and most importantly: it would cost some women their lives. There are still women who die in childbirth. There are women who are murdered by sexual partners who don’t want a baby.

I suffer from infertility and I would never want another woman to be coerced into continuing an unwanted pregnancy just so I could benefit from her situation. You don’t speak for “loving women who are infertile.”

This is because you are a good person who understands that we don’t use people, that coercing or forcing the use of someone’s body is immoral and because you are a person who doesn’t hate women. Blessings to you on your infertility journey, wherever that ends up. OP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Killing and getting all the child’s parts out of me would a million times more traumatic. Women have been giving birth and mothering their precious babies since the beginning of time.
But women in crisis situations deserve options that don’t leave her to terminate the baby when she doesn’t really want to.

Women don’t regret their abortions.
You are right. Women in crisis deserve options.
That includes choosing to no longer be pregnant.

Wear a condom. Or don’t have sex. Problem solved.

Oh boy are you ignorant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Killing and getting all the child’s parts out of me would a million times more traumatic. Women have been giving birth and mothering their precious babies since the beginning of time.
But women in crisis situations deserve options that don’t leave her to terminate the baby when she doesn’t really want to.

Women don’t regret their abortions.
You are right. Women in crisis deserve options.
That includes choosing to no longer be pregnant.

Wear a condom. Or don’t have sex. Problem solved.

Tell the father that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Killing and getting all the child’s parts out of me would a million times more traumatic. Women have been giving birth and mothering their precious babies since the beginning of time.
But women in crisis situations deserve options that don’t leave her to terminate the baby when she doesn’t really want to.

Women don’t regret their abortions.
You are right. Women in crisis deserve options.
That includes choosing to no longer be pregnant.

Wear a condom. Or don’t have sex. Problem solved.

Tell the father that.

Tell the sperm donor that. FIFY.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Killing and getting all the child’s parts out of me would a million times more traumatic. Women have been giving birth and mothering their precious babies since the beginning of time.
But women in crisis situations deserve options that don’t leave her to terminate the baby when she doesn’t really want to.

Women don’t regret their abortions.
You are right. Women in crisis deserve options.
That includes choosing to no longer be pregnant.

Wear a condom. Or don’t have sex. Problem solved.

Tell the father that.

Tell the sperm donor that. FIFY.

Tell the irresponsible ejaculator that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Killing and getting all the child’s parts out of me would a million times more traumatic. Women have been giving birth and mothering their precious babies since the beginning of time.
But women in crisis situations deserve options that don’t leave her to terminate the baby when she doesn’t really want to.

Women don’t regret their abortions.
You are right. Women in crisis deserve options.
That includes choosing to no longer be pregnant.

Wear a condom. Or don’t have sex. Problem solved.

Tell the father that.

Tell the sperm donor that. FIFY.

Tell the irresponsible ejaculator that.

You mean the rapist? Or the boyfriend?