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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Kamala Harris released an ad targeting conservative women. She is implying that we are being told by men how we should vote. And that the voting booth is the only place in America that we can choose. I find the ad offensive. She is acting as if we want to vote for her, but are being prevented from doing so by men in our lives. This is far from the case; we have made up our minds to vote against her based on her record.

How f88king condescending. Holy shit.

I guess you now you know how the majority of American women feel about these abortion bans

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Kamala Harris released an ad targeting conservative women. She is implying that we are being told by men how we should vote. And that the voting booth is the only place in America that we can choose. I find the ad offensive. She is acting as if we want to vote for her, but are being prevented from doing so by men in our lives. This is far from the case; we have made up our minds to vote against her based on her record.

How f88king condescending. Holy shit.

I guess you now you know how the majority of American women feel about these abortion bans

+1. Holy s*** is right. Nobody needs someone telling them what they should and should not do with their pregnancies. How f****** condescending.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I actually am in favor of widespread right to abortion in the first trimester, but far more limited rights to abortion around the time of viability, because at that point the child has a life that can survive independently.

This was the standard we all lived under for 50 years. If you liked it, you should vote against the man who messed it all up.

I am voting against that man, but because a lot of pro-choice advocates have moved away from “safe, legal, and rare,” I think it has become less pressing of an issue for a lot of voters.

Who is the mass movement away from “safe, legal and rare” that you reference? I don’t know anyone that wants (or doctors that want to perform) unnecessary 3 trimester abortions.

The push to drop the Hyde amendment is a clear example. New York’s abortion changes are another.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Kamala Harris released an ad targeting conservative women. She is implying that we are being told by men how we should vote. And that the voting booth is the only place in America that we can choose. I find the ad offensive. She is acting as if we want to vote for her, but are being prevented from doing so by men in our lives. This is far from the case; we have made up our minds to vote against her based on her record.

How f88king condescending. Holy shit.

I guess you now you know how the majority of American women feel about these abortion bans

+1. Holy s*** is right. Nobody needs someone telling them what they should and should not do with their pregnancies. How f****** condescending.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I actually am in favor of widespread right to abortion in the first trimester, but far more limited rights to abortion around the time of viability, because at that point the child has a life that can survive independently.

This was the standard we all lived under for 50 years. If you liked it, you should vote against the man who messed it all up.

I am voting against that man, but because a lot of pro-choice advocates have moved away from “safe, legal, and rare,” I think it has become less pressing of an issue for a lot of voters.

Who is the mass movement away from “safe, legal and rare” that you reference? I don’t know anyone that wants (or doctors that want to perform) unnecessary 3 trimester abortions.

Here is a New York Times article describing the democrats’ shift away from safe, legal and rare with examples

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/25/us/politics/abortion-laws-2020-democrats.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Kamala Harris released an ad targeting conservative women. She is implying that we are being told by men how we should vote. And that the voting booth is the only place in America that we can choose. I find the ad offensive. She is acting as if we want to vote for her, but are being prevented from doing so by men in our lives. This is far from the case; we have made up our minds to vote against her based on her record.

Super Cringe!

I don't get why they always feel the need have actors make men seem super creepy.

Trump manages that all by himself.

So Trump makes all men seem super creepy in commercials?

Not PP but some men are super creepy. Including Trump.

OK and understand, but that was not my question. I made no mention of Trump and he does not appear in the commercial.
So, my original question still stands, why make men always seem creepy in commercials?

I will also agree that SOME men are creepy and not ALL men are creepy. Also, I will say that SOME women are creepy (but not all women). Can you agree to that?
I read online about how Harris is losing the young male vote and how the left cant understand why they would go toward Trump. When all you do is portray someone as creepy or a doofus they don't want to be on your "team". This is why I have serious doubt about a party that I have previously supported.

This is one commercial in which the man is supposed to be creepy. Can you embed some other examples of Kamala Harris commercials in which you feel men are made to look creepy, because I just don’t see it. Go watch a few and then put them on here; should be easy according to you.

Hi, me again. If there’s an epidemic of ads for Kamala Harris in which men look creepy according to you, I’d like to see them and I think you should be able to find them easily. Where are they?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I actually am in favor of widespread right to abortion in the first trimester, but far more limited rights to abortion around the time of viability, because at that point the child has a life that can survive independently.

This was the standard we all lived under for 50 years. If you liked it, you should vote against the man who messed it all up.

I am voting against that man, but because a lot of pro-choice advocates have moved away from “safe, legal, and rare,” I think it has become less pressing of an issue for a lot of voters.

Who is the mass movement away from “safe, legal and rare” that you reference? I don’t know anyone that wants (or doctors that want to perform) unnecessary 3 trimester abortions.

Here is a New York Times article describing the democrats’ shift away from safe, legal and rare with examples

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/25/us/politics/abortion-laws-2020-democrats.html

2019, 2019, 2019… gosh, that was a world in which Roe still existed but was under attack to the tune of thousands of forced birther bills introduced annually. It’s almost like it was another world.

[Anonymous]

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?

Women’s rights are about more than abortions

And democrats don’t care about women’s rights.

They do care about women’s rights. They just don’t care about the hysterics over manufactured issues. There are more concerned about the pressing, big issues for women.

[Anonymous]

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?

Women’s rights are about more than abortions

And democrats don’t care about women’s rights.

They do care about women’s rights. They just don’t care about the hysterics over manufactured issues. There are more concerned about the pressing, big issues for women.

You are not the arbiter of what are real issues and what are not. Women get to decide that, and how pressing those concerns are, for themselves. How fitting that you describe other women’s feelings with the loaded, misogyny-laced term “hysterics”.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I actually am in favor of widespread right to abortion in the first trimester, but far more limited rights to abortion around the time of viability, because at that point the child has a life that can survive independently.

This was the standard we all lived under for 50 years. If you liked it, you should vote against the man who messed it all up.

I am voting against that man, but because a lot of pro-choice advocates have moved away from “safe, legal, and rare,” I think it has become less pressing of an issue for a lot of voters.

Who is the mass movement away from “safe, legal and rare” that you reference? I don’t know anyone that wants (or doctors that want to perform) unnecessary 3 trimester abortions.

Here is a New York Times article describing the democrats’ shift away from safe, legal and rare with examples

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/25/us/politics/abortion-laws-2020-democrats.html

2019, 2019, 2019… gosh, that was a world in which Roe still existed but was under attack to the tune of thousands of forced birther bills introduced annually. It’s almost like it was another world.

The democrats haven’t shifted back to the safe, legal and rare perspective post Dobbs so I’m not sure what your point is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I actually am in favor of widespread right to abortion in the first trimester, but far more limited rights to abortion around the time of viability, because at that point the child has a life that can survive independently.

This was the standard we all lived under for 50 years. If you liked it, you should vote against the man who messed it all up.

I am voting against that man, but because a lot of pro-choice advocates have moved away from “safe, legal, and rare,” I think it has become less pressing of an issue for a lot of voters.

Who is the mass movement away from “safe, legal and rare” that you reference? I don’t know anyone that wants (or doctors that want to perform) unnecessary 3 trimester abortions.

Here is a New York Times article describing the democrats’ shift away from safe, legal and rare with examples

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/25/us/politics/abortion-laws-2020-democrats.html

2019, 2019, 2019… gosh, that was a world in which Roe still existed but was under attack to the tune of thousands of forced birther bills introduced annually. It’s almost like it was another world.

The democrats haven’t shifted back to the safe, legal and rare perspective post Dobbs so I’m not sure what your point is.

Why would we shift back to that when women in the forced birther states can’t get abortions at all?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I actually am in favor of widespread right to abortion in the first trimester, but far more limited rights to abortion around the time of viability, because at that point the child has a life that can survive independently.

This was the standard we all lived under for 50 years. If you liked it, you should vote against the man who messed it all up.

I am voting against that man, but because a lot of pro-choice advocates have moved away from “safe, legal, and rare,” I think it has become less pressing of an issue for a lot of voters.

Who is the mass movement away from “safe, legal and rare” that you reference? I don’t know anyone that wants (or doctors that want to perform) unnecessary 3 trimester abortions.

Here is a New York Times article describing the democrats’ shift away from safe, legal and rare with examples

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/25/us/politics/abortion-laws-2020-democrats.html

2019, 2019, 2019… gosh, that was a world in which Roe still existed but was under attack to the tune of thousands of forced birther bills introduced annually. It’s almost like it was another world.

The democrats haven’t shifted back to the safe, legal and rare perspective post Dobbs so I’m not sure what your point is.

Huh?

For decades, abortion rates were dropping.

You want fewer abortions, push to expand access to LARCs and sex ed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I actually am in favor of widespread right to abortion in the first trimester, but far more limited rights to abortion around the time of viability, because at that point the child has a life that can survive independently.

This was the standard we all lived under for 50 years. If you liked it, you should vote against the man who messed it all up.

I am voting against that man, but because a lot of pro-choice advocates have moved away from “safe, legal, and rare,” I think it has become less pressing of an issue for a lot of voters.

Who is the mass movement away from “safe, legal and rare” that you reference? I don’t know anyone that wants (or doctors that want to perform) unnecessary 3 trimester abortions.

Here is a New York Times article describing the democrats’ shift away from safe, legal and rare with examples

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/25/us/politics/abortion-laws-2020-democrats.html

2019, 2019, 2019… gosh, that was a world in which Roe still existed but was under attack to the tune of thousands of forced birther bills introduced annually. It’s almost like it was another world.

The democrats haven’t shifted back to the safe, legal and rare perspective post Dobbs so I’m not sure what your point is.

Why would we shift back to that when women in the forced birther states can’t get abortions at all?

So then PP’s point stands and you are no longer confused about the movement away from “safe legal and rare.” Glad you came around!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I actually am in favor of widespread right to abortion in the first trimester, but far more limited rights to abortion around the time of viability, because at that point the child has a life that can survive independently.

This was the standard we all lived under for 50 years. If you liked it, you should vote against the man who messed it all up.

I am voting against that man, but because a lot of pro-choice advocates have moved away from “safe, legal, and rare,” I think it has become less pressing of an issue for a lot of voters.

Who is the mass movement away from “safe, legal and rare” that you reference? I don’t know anyone that wants (or doctors that want to perform) unnecessary 3 trimester abortions.

Here is a New York Times article describing the democrats’ shift away from safe, legal and rare with examples

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/25/us/politics/abortion-laws-2020-democrats.html

2019, 2019, 2019… gosh, that was a world in which Roe still existed but was under attack to the tune of thousands of forced birther bills introduced annually. It’s almost like it was another world.

The democrats haven’t shifted back to the safe, legal and rare perspective post Dobbs so I’m not sure what your point is.

Huh?

For decades, abortion rates were dropping.

You want fewer abortions, push to expand access to LARCs and sex ed.

Read the NYT article and you will gain understanding of what we are talking about.

[Anonymous]

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?

Women’s rights are about more than abortions

And democrats don’t care about women’s rights.

They do care about women’s rights. They just don’t care about the hysterics over manufactured issues. There are more concerned about the pressing, big issues for women.

You are not the arbiter of what are real issues and what are not. Women get to decide that, and how pressing those concerns are, for themselves. How fitting that you describe other women’s feelings with the loaded, misogyny-laced term “hysterics”.

You are not the arbiter of what I do or do not do with my pregnancy. I get to decide that for myself.