Boycott/ Divest and Pull your College App from All States which violate Our Daughters' Civil Rights

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread has clearly devolved into one religious wingnut posting again and again about how the left is “pro murder” and how women aren’t allowed to have sex for pleasure. Unfortunately, you can’t murder a fetus because it isn’t alive and women can do whatever they want.

I think that due to the history of murdering people for their “cause” (an imaginary person in the sky) religious activists against abortion should be investigated and put on domestic terrorism watch lists.

This thread could be constructive if everyone started from a position that there are competing interests at stake, being the pregnant woman’s liberty and the developing human’s life. At some point during the pregnancy it’s reasonable to prioritize the developing human’s life. As support, most countries ban abortions after a certain number of gestational weeks (and the Roe decision did the same). So we could be talking about where and under what conditions prioritizing the pregnant human’s liberty (and allow termination of the pregnancy) is reasonable. And reasonably that could be drawn in a lot of places—if closer to conception, then perhaps that’s only “reasonable” if there are family assistance programs. That’s all for political debate.

But no— This thread is about bludgeoning the other side with the terms “forced birth” or “pro-murder”. Anyone using those terms doesn’t want to discuss how to reasonably balance the competing interests.

No. There is no compromise. What part of “it’s not your decision to make” is so hard for you to understand?

Don’t want an abortion? Don’t have one. You have no right to force me to carry a fetus if I decide not to. Period. That is the fair and just position since this issue hinges on personal beliefs. It is personal.

I think what makes it hard to understand is that it isnt true. Abortion is subject to legislation. Voters are going to be influencing this process. So you can say that it isnt our business, but it is now our purview, and people will be proceeding accordingly.

You fraudulently took power in order to force your religious views on the whole country. That is not a legitimate claim to righteousness. It’s just the typical story of authoritarian types forcing their views on the rest of us.

For goodness sake, you sound hysterical. The SC didn't take away anything. It gave the states the right to decide the issue. Some states made a decision you don't like, but you now want to force your beliefs on what the voters of those states have decided. If they do not like the situation as it is, they will vote to change it. I really don't see how this involves you in any way, shape or form unless you are in one of those states, which I doubt. You are the one forcing your views on multiple states' voters. As so many on this thread have said, it's "none of your business" what other voters in other states decide as their rule of law.

+ a million
Exactly this.

Please. That load of crap was used to justify slavery.

Speaking of a load of crap ^^^

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread has clearly devolved into one religious wingnut posting again and again about how the left is “pro murder” and how women aren’t allowed to have sex for pleasure. Unfortunately, you can’t murder a fetus because it isn’t alive and women can do whatever they want.

I think that due to the history of murdering people for their “cause” (an imaginary person in the sky) religious activists against abortion should be investigated and put on domestic terrorism watch lists.

This thread could be constructive if everyone started from a position that there are competing interests at stake, being the pregnant woman’s liberty and the developing human’s life. At some point during the pregnancy it’s reasonable to prioritize the developing human’s life. As support, most countries ban abortions after a certain number of gestational weeks (and the Roe decision did the same). So we could be talking about where and under what conditions prioritizing the pregnant human’s liberty (and allow termination of the pregnancy) is reasonable. And reasonably that could be drawn in a lot of places—if closer to conception, then perhaps that’s only “reasonable” if there are family assistance programs. That’s all for political debate.

But no— This thread is about bludgeoning the other side with the terms “forced birth” or “pro-murder”. Anyone using those terms doesn’t want to discuss how to reasonably balance the competing interests.

No. There is no compromise. What part of “it’s not your decision to make” is so hard for you to understand?

Don’t want an abortion? Don’t have one. You have no right to force me to carry a fetus if I decide not to. Period. That is the fair and just position since this issue hinges on personal beliefs. It is personal.

I think what makes it hard to understand is that it isnt true. Abortion is subject to legislation. Voters are going to be influencing this process. So you can say that it isnt our business, but it is now our purview, and people will be proceeding accordingly.

You fraudulently took power in order to force your religious views on the whole country. That is not a legitimate claim to righteousness. It’s just the typical story of authoritarian types forcing their views on the rest of us.

For goodness sake, you sound hysterical. The SC didn't take away anything. It gave the states the right to decide the issue. Some states made a decision you don't like, but you now want to force your beliefs on what the voters of those states have decided. If they do not like the situation as it is, they will vote to change it. I really don't see how this involves you in any way, shape or form unless you are in one of those states, which I doubt. You are the one forcing your views on multiple states' voters. As so many on this thread have said, it's "none of your business" what other voters in other states decide as their rule of law.

+ a million
Exactly this.

Yes, those states that are also gerrymandered to death so as to require a supermajority of Democrats in order to get 51% of the vote. We all know you don’t support blue states making any decisions respecting “freedoms”. You rigged the game so the outcome you want is the only outcome that’s possible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread has clearly devolved into one religious wingnut posting again and again about how the left is “pro murder” and how women aren’t allowed to have sex for pleasure. Unfortunately, you can’t murder a fetus because it isn’t alive and women can do whatever they want.

I think that due to the history of murdering people for their “cause” (an imaginary person in the sky) religious activists against abortion should be investigated and put on domestic terrorism watch lists.

This thread could be constructive if everyone started from a position that there are competing interests at stake, being the pregnant woman’s liberty and the developing human’s life. At some point during the pregnancy it’s reasonable to prioritize the developing human’s life. As support, most countries ban abortions after a certain number of gestational weeks (and the Roe decision did the same). So we could be talking about where and under what conditions prioritizing the pregnant human’s liberty (and allow termination of the pregnancy) is reasonable. And reasonably that could be drawn in a lot of places—if closer to conception, then perhaps that’s only “reasonable” if there are family assistance programs. That’s all for political debate.

But no— This thread is about bludgeoning the other side with the terms “forced birth” or “pro-murder”. Anyone using those terms doesn’t want to discuss how to reasonably balance the competing interests.

No. There is no compromise. What part of “it’s not your decision to make” is so hard for you to understand?

Don’t want an abortion? Don’t have one. You have no right to force me to carry a fetus if I decide not to. Period. That is the fair and just position since this issue hinges on personal beliefs. It is personal.

I think what makes it hard to understand is that it isnt true. Abortion is subject to legislation. Voters are going to be influencing this process. So you can say that it isnt our business, but it is now our purview, and people will be proceeding accordingly.

You fraudulently took power in order to force your religious views on the whole country. That is not a legitimate claim to righteousness. It’s just the typical story of authoritarian types forcing their views on the rest of us.

For goodness sake, you sound hysterical. The SC didn't take away anything. It gave the states the right to decide the issue. Some states made a decision you don't like, but you now want to force your beliefs on what the voters of those states have decided. If they do not like the situation as it is, they will vote to change it. I really don't see how this involves you in any way, shape or form unless you are in one of those states, which I doubt. You are the one forcing your views on multiple states' voters. As so many on this thread have said, it's "none of your business" what other voters in other states decide as their rule of law.

+ a million
Exactly this.

Please. That load of crap was used to justify slavery.

It was also used to justify the Civil Rights Act.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread has clearly devolved into one religious wingnut posting again and again about how the left is “pro murder” and how women aren’t allowed to have sex for pleasure. Unfortunately, you can’t murder a fetus because it isn’t alive and women can do whatever they want.

I think that due to the history of murdering people for their “cause” (an imaginary person in the sky) religious activists against abortion should be investigated and put on domestic terrorism watch lists.

This thread could be constructive if everyone started from a position that there are competing interests at stake, being the pregnant woman’s liberty and the developing human’s life. At some point during the pregnancy it’s reasonable to prioritize the developing human’s life. As support, most countries ban abortions after a certain number of gestational weeks (and the Roe decision did the same). So we could be talking about where and under what conditions prioritizing the pregnant human’s liberty (and allow termination of the pregnancy) is reasonable. And reasonably that could be drawn in a lot of places—if closer to conception, then perhaps that’s only “reasonable” if there are family assistance programs. That’s all for political debate.

But no— This thread is about bludgeoning the other side with the terms “forced birth” or “pro-murder”. Anyone using those terms doesn’t want to discuss how to reasonably balance the competing interests.

No. There is no compromise. What part of “it’s not your decision to make” is so hard for you to understand?

Don’t want an abortion? Don’t have one. You have no right to force me to carry a fetus if I decide not to. Period. That is the fair and just position since this issue hinges on personal beliefs. It is personal.

I think what makes it hard to understand is that it isnt true. Abortion is subject to legislation. Voters are going to be influencing this process. So you can say that it isnt our business, but it is now our purview, and people will be proceeding accordingly.

You fraudulently took power in order to force your religious views on the whole country. That is not a legitimate claim to righteousness. It’s just the typical story of authoritarian types forcing their views on the rest of us.

For goodness sake, you sound hysterical. The SC didn't take away anything. It gave the states the right to decide the issue. Some states made a decision you don't like, but you now want to force your beliefs on what the voters of those states have decided. If they do not like the situation as it is, they will vote to change it. I really don't see how this involves you in any way, shape or form unless you are in one of those states, which I doubt. You are the one forcing your views on multiple states' voters. As so many on this thread have said, it's "none of your business" what other voters in other states decide as their rule of law.

+ a million
Exactly this.

Yes, those states that are also gerrymandered to death so as to require a supermajority of Democrats in order to get 51% of the vote. We all know you don’t support blue states making any decisions respecting “freedoms”. You rigged the game so the outcome you want is the only outcome that’s possible.

Actually, conservatives love federalism.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread has clearly devolved into one religious wingnut posting again and again about how the left is “pro murder” and how women aren’t allowed to have sex for pleasure. Unfortunately, you can’t murder a fetus because it isn’t alive and women can do whatever they want.

I think that due to the history of murdering people for their “cause” (an imaginary person in the sky) religious activists against abortion should be investigated and put on domestic terrorism watch lists.

This thread could be constructive if everyone started from a position that there are competing interests at stake, being the pregnant woman’s liberty and the developing human’s life. At some point during the pregnancy it’s reasonable to prioritize the developing human’s life. As support, most countries ban abortions after a certain number of gestational weeks (and the Roe decision did the same). So we could be talking about where and under what conditions prioritizing the pregnant human’s liberty (and allow termination of the pregnancy) is reasonable. And reasonably that could be drawn in a lot of places—if closer to conception, then perhaps that’s only “reasonable” if there are family assistance programs. That’s all for political debate.

But no— This thread is about bludgeoning the other side with the terms “forced birth” or “pro-murder”. Anyone using those terms doesn’t want to discuss how to reasonably balance the competing interests.

No. There is no compromise. What part of “it’s not your decision to make” is so hard for you to understand?

Don’t want an abortion? Don’t have one. You have no right to force me to carry a fetus if I decide not to. Period. That is the fair and just position since this issue hinges on personal beliefs. It is personal.

I think what makes it hard to understand is that it isnt true. Abortion is subject to legislation. Voters are going to be influencing this process. So you can say that it isnt our business, but it is now our purview, and people will be proceeding accordingly.

You fraudulently took power in order to force your religious views on the whole country. That is not a legitimate claim to righteousness. It’s just the typical story of authoritarian types forcing their views on the rest of us.

For goodness sake, you sound hysterical. The SC didn't take away anything. It gave the states the right to decide the issue. Some states made a decision you don't like, but you now want to force your beliefs on what the voters of those states have decided. If they do not like the situation as it is, they will vote to change it. I really don't see how this involves you in any way, shape or form unless you are in one of those states, which I doubt. You are the one forcing your views on multiple states' voters. As so many on this thread have said, it's "none of your business" what other voters in other states decide as their rule of law.

+ a million
Exactly this.

Please. That load of crap was used to justify slavery.

Speaking of a load of crap ^^^

You can't just vote away a fundamental right. I mean you can and you did but this fight will go on and on and on until women get their fundamental rights. women have been oppressed for ever, this is just a battle in a long, long war.

[Anonymous]

The pro murder crowd proves time and time again they are not pro choice. If you choose to be pro life and that is why it pro life, no one is forced to give birth. They use that term because they don’t like being called pro murder.

Anyway if a woman or daughter chooses to support colleges and business in states that are pro life, the pro murderers don’t accept that. The choice the pro lifers make and business and colleges they support aren’t the right choice.

Clearly to them the only choice is pro murder.

Sad really!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The pro murder crowd proves time and time again they are not pro choice. If you choose to be pro life and that is why it pro life, no one is forced to give birth. They use that term because they don’t like being called pro murder.

Anyway if a woman or daughter chooses to support colleges and business in states that are pro life, the pro murderers don’t accept that. The choice the pro lifers make and business and colleges they support aren’t the right choice.

Clearly to them the only choice is pro murder.

Sad really!

That was a waste of a post. Go live in state you want ....attend college...support business, rsise up your kids to think that abortion is wrong. All fine.

Don't force it on other women. Pro choice means choice. No one would ever dream of forcing you to have an abortion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread has clearly devolved into one religious wingnut posting again and again about how the left is “pro murder” and how women aren’t allowed to have sex for pleasure. Unfortunately, you can’t murder a fetus because it isn’t alive and women can do whatever they want.

I think that due to the history of murdering people for their “cause” (an imaginary person in the sky) religious activists against abortion should be investigated and put on domestic terrorism watch lists.

This thread could be constructive if everyone started from a position that there are competing interests at stake, being the pregnant woman’s liberty and the developing human’s life. At some point during the pregnancy it’s reasonable to prioritize the developing human’s life. As support, most countries ban abortions after a certain number of gestational weeks (and the Roe decision did the same). So we could be talking about where and under what conditions prioritizing the pregnant human’s liberty (and allow termination of the pregnancy) is reasonable. And reasonably that could be drawn in a lot of places—if closer to conception, then perhaps that’s only “reasonable” if there are family assistance programs. That’s all for political debate.

But no— This thread is about bludgeoning the other side with the terms “forced birth” or “pro-murder”. Anyone using those terms doesn’t want to discuss how to reasonably balance the competing interests.

No. There is no compromise. What part of “it’s not your decision to make” is so hard for you to understand?

Don’t want an abortion? Don’t have one. You have no right to force me to carry a fetus if I decide not to. Period. That is the fair and just position since this issue hinges on personal beliefs. It is personal.

I think what makes it hard to understand is that it isnt true. Abortion is subject to legislation. Voters are going to be influencing this process. So you can say that it isnt our business, but it is now our purview, and people will be proceeding accordingly.

Except that it isn't because even when the procedure is illegal it does not have the desired effect. A few births may be forced but mostly the abortions just go underground and become much less safe and legal.

You are not understanding the life altering nature of a pregnancy and the extreme and desperate motivation of a person that is pregnant and does not want to be pregnant. Your interference is cruel and unfair and horrible but it has very limited effect.

I didnt decide Roe. Im just not in denial about its implications. It is now up to voters.

Well yes. Until some.of these anti women justices move on and are replaced with some people with some respect for women's rights, we are stuck in a world of dangerous illegal procedures or extensive travel and hardship imposed on women in the gilead states to get to a place where they can freely exercise their rightful decison making power.

So yes....VOTE to get our rights back.

This might shock you, but many women in red and purple states believe in some kind of limitation on abortion.

And that’s what Roe allowed. Get it though your skull. The court has removed the rights of women to decide this for themselves in any circumstance. It’s disgusting.

DP. You are quite wrong. The SC has moved the issue to the STATES - back to the democratic process of voting, you twit. The bolded is just a hysterical lie.

" The Issue " ??

Face this: since the beginning of time Women choose who we will have a baby with and when we will abort

This is the other half of the law of natural selection and its actually better for society to weed out the men who's DNA should not survive another generation

What is poor judicial judgement about the SCOTUS decision is it is very similar to the SCOTUS saying that Slavery is a " state's rights issue"

Actually, no, no state may pass any law enslaving another human being or subjecting them to involuntary servitude

We as women don't " need an Amendment to allow us to control our own bodies" We have that control- always have and , one way or another, always will have

What we will soon have codified into the Constitution is this," Women have sole autonomy over their own bodies and neither Congress nor the States shall attempt to pass any law superceding that right "

Period

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread has clearly devolved into one religious wingnut posting again and again about how the left is “pro murder” and how women aren’t allowed to have sex for pleasure. Unfortunately, you can’t murder a fetus because it isn’t alive and women can do whatever they want.

I think that due to the history of murdering people for their “cause” (an imaginary person in the sky) religious activists against abortion should be investigated and put on domestic terrorism watch lists.

This thread could be constructive if everyone started from a position that there are competing interests at stake, being the pregnant woman’s liberty and the developing human’s life. At some point during the pregnancy it’s reasonable to prioritize the developing human’s life. As support, most countries ban abortions after a certain number of gestational weeks (and the Roe decision did the same). So we could be talking about where and under what conditions prioritizing the pregnant human’s liberty (and allow termination of the pregnancy) is reasonable. And reasonably that could be drawn in a lot of places—if closer to conception, then perhaps that’s only “reasonable” if there are family assistance programs. That’s all for political debate.

But no— This thread is about bludgeoning the other side with the terms “forced birth” or “pro-murder”. Anyone using those terms doesn’t want to discuss how to reasonably balance the competing interests.

No. There is no compromise. What part of “it’s not your decision to make” is so hard for you to understand?

Don’t want an abortion? Don’t have one. You have no right to force me to carry a fetus if I decide not to. Period. That is the fair and just position since this issue hinges on personal beliefs. It is personal.

I think what makes it hard to understand is that it isnt true. Abortion is subject to legislation. Voters are going to be influencing this process. So you can say that it isnt our business, but it is now our purview, and people will be proceeding accordingly.

Except that it isn't because even when the procedure is illegal it does not have the desired effect. A few births may be forced but mostly the abortions just go underground and become much less safe and legal.

You are not understanding the life altering nature of a pregnancy and the extreme and desperate motivation of a person that is pregnant and does not want to be pregnant. Your interference is cruel and unfair and horrible but it has very limited effect.

I didnt decide Roe. Im just not in denial about its implications. It is now up to voters.

Well yes. Until some.of these anti women justices move on and are replaced with some people with some respect for women's rights, we are stuck in a world of dangerous illegal procedures or extensive travel and hardship imposed on women in the gilead states to get to a place where they can freely exercise their rightful decison making power.

So yes....VOTE to get our rights back.

This might shock you, but many women in red and purple states believe in some kind of limitation on abortion.

And that’s what Roe allowed. Get it though your skull. The court has removed the rights of women to decide this for themselves in any circumstance. It’s disgusting.

DP. You are quite wrong. The SC has moved the issue to the STATES - back to the democratic process of voting, you twit. The bolded is just a hysterical lie.

" The Issue " ??

Face this: since the beginning of time Women choose who we will have a baby with and when we will abort

This is the other half of the law of natural selection and its actually better for society to weed out the men who's DNA should not survive another generation

What is poor judicial judgement about the SCOTUS decision is it is very similar to the SCOTUS saying that Slavery is a " state's rights issue"

Actually, no, no state may pass any law enslaving another human being or subjecting them to involuntary servitude

We as women don't " need an Amendment to allow us to control our own bodies" We have that control- always have and , one way or another, always will have

What we will soon have codified into the Constitution is this," Women have sole autonomy over their own bodies and neither Congress nor the States shall attempt to pass any law superceding that right "

Period

+1. Women control this decision and always have and always will to the best of their ability.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The pro murder crowd proves time and time again they are not pro choice. If you choose to be pro life and that is why it pro life, no one is forced to give birth. They use that term because they don’t like being called pro murder.

Anyway if a woman or daughter chooses to support colleges and business in states that are pro life, the pro murderers don’t accept that. The choice the pro lifers make and business and colleges they support aren’t the right choice.

Clearly to them the only choice is pro murder.

Sad really!

That was a waste of a post. Go live in state you want ....attend college...support business, rsise up your kids to think that abortion is wrong. All fine.

Don't force it on other women. Pro choice means choice. No one would ever dream of forcing you to have an abortion.

See the pro murder crowd doesn’t like being called pro murder. If the pro lifer says you are allowing murder, you aren’t pro choice you are pro murder.

Not one state is forcing anyone to have birth. You made a choice which brought about a pregnancy and now you and everyone else who wants to terminate is pro murder.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread has clearly devolved into one religious wingnut posting again and again about how the left is “pro murder” and how women aren’t allowed to have sex for pleasure. Unfortunately, you can’t murder a fetus because it isn’t alive and women can do whatever they want.

I think that due to the history of murdering people for their “cause” (an imaginary person in the sky) religious activists against abortion should be investigated and put on domestic terrorism watch lists.

This thread could be constructive if everyone started from a position that there are competing interests at stake, being the pregnant woman’s liberty and the developing human’s life. At some point during the pregnancy it’s reasonable to prioritize the developing human’s life. As support, most countries ban abortions after a certain number of gestational weeks (and the Roe decision did the same). So we could be talking about where and under what conditions prioritizing the pregnant human’s liberty (and allow termination of the pregnancy) is reasonable. And reasonably that could be drawn in a lot of places—if closer to conception, then perhaps that’s only “reasonable” if there are family assistance programs. That’s all for political debate.

But no— This thread is about bludgeoning the other side with the terms “forced birth” or “pro-murder”. Anyone using those terms doesn’t want to discuss how to reasonably balance the competing interests.

No. There is no compromise. What part of “it’s not your decision to make” is so hard for you to understand?

Don’t want an abortion? Don’t have one. You have no right to force me to carry a fetus if I decide not to. Period. That is the fair and just position since this issue hinges on personal beliefs. It is personal.

I think what makes it hard to understand is that it isnt true. Abortion is subject to legislation. Voters are going to be influencing this process. So you can say that it isnt our business, but it is now our purview, and people will be proceeding accordingly.

Except that it isn't because even when the procedure is illegal it does not have the desired effect. A few births may be forced but mostly the abortions just go underground and become much less safe and legal.

You are not understanding the life altering nature of a pregnancy and the extreme and desperate motivation of a person that is pregnant and does not want to be pregnant. Your interference is cruel and unfair and horrible but it has very limited effect.

I didnt decide Roe. Im just not in denial about its implications. It is now up to voters.

Well yes. Until some.of these anti women justices move on and are replaced with some people with some respect for women's rights, we are stuck in a world of dangerous illegal procedures or extensive travel and hardship imposed on women in the gilead states to get to a place where they can freely exercise their rightful decison making power.

So yes....VOTE to get our rights back.

This might shock you, but many women in red and purple states believe in some kind of limitation on abortion.

And that’s what Roe allowed. Get it though your skull. The court has removed the rights of women to decide this for themselves in any circumstance. It’s disgusting.

DP. You are quite wrong. The SC has moved the issue to the STATES - back to the democratic process of voting, you twit. The bolded is just a hysterical lie.

Because historically states are trustworthy guardians of civil rights? What year was it that Mississippi officially outlawed slavery- 2013?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The pro murder crowd proves time and time again they are not pro choice. If you choose to be pro life and that is why it pro life, no one is forced to give birth. They use that term because they don’t like being called pro murder.

Anyway if a woman or daughter chooses to support colleges and business in states that are pro life, the pro murderers don’t accept that. The choice the pro lifers make and business and colleges they support aren’t the right choice.

Clearly to them the only choice is pro murder.

Sad really!

That was a waste of a post. Go live in state you want ....attend college...support business, rsise up your kids to think that abortion is wrong. All fine.

Don't force it on other women. Pro choice means choice. No one would ever dream of forcing you to have an abortion.

See the pro murder crowd doesn’t like being called pro murder. If the pro lifer says you are allowing murder, you aren’t pro choice you are pro murder.

Not one state is forcing anyone to have birth. You made a choice which brought about a pregnancy and now you and everyone else who wants to terminate is pro murder.

They are trying to force births. They can't do it for the most part. We have seen this movie before.

As for the pro murder name calling, it is just ignored as nonsense.

DD is a commercial pilot. She wakes up at home a professional pilot and valued member of her community and during her work traveling arpund the country...she alternates from being considered that to being considered a homocidal criminal? It's patently absurd.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread has clearly devolved into one religious wingnut posting again and again about how the left is “pro murder” and how women aren’t allowed to have sex for pleasure. Unfortunately, you can’t murder a fetus because it isn’t alive and women can do whatever they want.

I think that due to the history of murdering people for their “cause” (an imaginary person in the sky) religious activists against abortion should be investigated and put on domestic terrorism watch lists.

This thread could be constructive if everyone started from a position that there are competing interests at stake, being the pregnant woman’s liberty and the developing human’s life. At some point during the pregnancy it’s reasonable to prioritize the developing human’s life. As support, most countries ban abortions after a certain number of gestational weeks (and the Roe decision did the same). So we could be talking about where and under what conditions prioritizing the pregnant human’s liberty (and allow termination of the pregnancy) is reasonable. And reasonably that could be drawn in a lot of places—if closer to conception, then perhaps that’s only “reasonable” if there are family assistance programs. That’s all for political debate.

But no— This thread is about bludgeoning the other side with the terms “forced birth” or “pro-murder”. Anyone using those terms doesn’t want to discuss how to reasonably balance the competing interests.

PP, 92% of ALL of Abortions in the USA are performed in the 1st 10 weeks

They would likely be performed even sooner IF there were Nationalized Health Care and better education in schools about sex, birth control and pregnancy

You know, like the Dutch who have the lowest rate of Teen Pregnancy AND Abortion in the world

The Dutch also have 18 month paid maternity leave and nearly Free child care thereafter

Forced Birthers don't need to claim that term limits must be set on Abortion- if you truly want there to be ONLY first 8 week or first 10 week abortions, then improve sex ed, and nationalize health care so that a pregnant woman doesn't have to raise the money to pay for the procedure and wait for an appointment

Personally, I was ok with the compromise made by the Roe court, but I recognize it’s not the only reasonable balancing of competing interests. I think a 10 or 12 week limit, with exceptions for maternal health and rape / incest, could serve as model legislation that might actually be implemented in many states. I doubt nationalized health care is doable, but with so many passionate, interested people, a privately funded organization to help cover costs for lower-SES pregnant women could be doable.

What you personally think is irrelevant. The bodies of women of reproductive age ARE NOT common property. You don’t get a say. If women of reproductive age will be forced into undue burden and loss of autonomy, then so should every citizen of this country. You may not put in place a discriminatory law. Every citizen should be required to donate blood, bone marrow, kidney, stem cells etc etc to save the life of another citizen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread has clearly devolved into one religious wingnut posting again and again about how the left is “pro murder” and how women aren’t allowed to have sex for pleasure. Unfortunately, you can’t murder a fetus because it isn’t alive and women can do whatever they want.

I think that due to the history of murdering people for their “cause” (an imaginary person in the sky) religious activists against abortion should be investigated and put on domestic terrorism watch lists.

This thread could be constructive if everyone started from a position that there are competing interests at stake, being the pregnant woman’s liberty and the developing human’s life. At some point during the pregnancy it’s reasonable to prioritize the developing human’s life. As support, most countries ban abortions after a certain number of gestational weeks (and the Roe decision did the same). So we could be talking about where and under what conditions prioritizing the pregnant human’s liberty (and allow termination of the pregnancy) is reasonable. And reasonably that could be drawn in a lot of places—if closer to conception, then perhaps that’s only “reasonable” if there are family assistance programs. That’s all for political debate.

But no— This thread is about bludgeoning the other side with the terms “forced birth” or “pro-murder”. Anyone using those terms doesn’t want to discuss how to reasonably balance the competing interests.

PP, 92% of ALL of Abortions in the USA are performed in the 1st 10 weeks

They would likely be performed even sooner IF there were Nationalized Health Care and better education in schools about sex, birth control and pregnancy

You know, like the Dutch who have the lowest rate of Teen Pregnancy AND Abortion in the world

The Dutch also have 18 month paid maternity leave and nearly Free child care thereafter

Forced Birthers don't need to claim that term limits must be set on Abortion- if you truly want there to be ONLY first 8 week or first 10 week abortions, then improve sex ed, and nationalize health care so that a pregnant woman doesn't have to raise the money to pay for the procedure and wait for an appointment

Personally, I was ok with the compromise made by the Roe court, but I recognize it’s not the only reasonable balancing of competing interests. I think a 10 or 12 week limit, with exceptions for maternal health and rape / incest, could serve as model legislation that might actually be implemented in many states. I doubt nationalized health care is doable, but with so many passionate, interested people, a privately funded organization to help cover costs for lower-SES pregnant women could be doable.

You are missing the whole point, PP.

Here is the data from the CDC: https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/data_stats/abortion.htm
Almost 90 % of Abortions in this country ARE ALREADY just as you say you want- in the 1st 10 weeks

The other 10 percent or so are for severe birth defects, children who don't realize they were pregnant because they were raped. etc...

This does NOT need to be legislated and its an Offense to women to suggest it needs to be thus

Again, if you TRULY, truly, truly do NOT want abortion to ever happen: Fund and demand more comprehensive Sex Ed in schools, cheaper and more effective contraception AND

Paid 18 month maternity leave and heavily subsidized day care

THAT is how you can encourage births

But you will never win against what is the law of the Universe since the beginning: by process of natural selection, the woman chooses her mate, the men compete for her favor and those unfit for survival are not carried forward

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread has clearly devolved into one religious wingnut posting again and again about how the left is “pro murder” and how women aren’t allowed to have sex for pleasure. Unfortunately, you can’t murder a fetus because it isn’t alive and women can do whatever they want.

I think that due to the history of murdering people for their “cause” (an imaginary person in the sky) religious activists against abortion should be investigated and put on domestic terrorism watch lists.

This thread could be constructive if everyone started from a position that there are competing interests at stake, being the pregnant woman’s liberty and the developing human’s life. At some point during the pregnancy it’s reasonable to prioritize the developing human’s life. As support, most countries ban abortions after a certain number of gestational weeks (and the Roe decision did the same). So we could be talking about where and under what conditions prioritizing the pregnant human’s liberty (and allow termination of the pregnancy) is reasonable. And reasonably that could be drawn in a lot of places—if closer to conception, then perhaps that’s only “reasonable” if there are family assistance programs. That’s all for political debate.

But no— This thread is about bludgeoning the other side with the terms “forced birth” or “pro-murder”. Anyone using those terms doesn’t want to discuss how to reasonably balance the competing interests.

PP, 92% of ALL of Abortions in the USA are performed in the 1st 10 weeks

They would likely be performed even sooner IF there were Nationalized Health Care and better education in schools about sex, birth control and pregnancy

You know, like the Dutch who have the lowest rate of Teen Pregnancy AND Abortion in the world

The Dutch also have 18 month paid maternity leave and nearly Free child care thereafter

Forced Birthers don't need to claim that term limits must be set on Abortion- if you truly want there to be ONLY first 8 week or first 10 week abortions, then improve sex ed, and nationalize health care so that a pregnant woman doesn't have to raise the money to pay for the procedure and wait for an appointment

Personally, I was ok with the compromise made by the Roe court, but I recognize it’s not the only reasonable balancing of competing interests. I think a 10 or 12 week limit, with exceptions for maternal health and rape / incest, could serve as model legislation that might actually be implemented in many states. I doubt nationalized health care is doable, but with so many passionate, interested people, a privately funded organization to help cover costs for lower-SES pregnant women could be doable.

You are missing the whole point, PP.

Here is the data from the CDC: https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/data_stats/abortion.htm
Almost 90 % of Abortions in this country ARE ALREADY just as you say you want- in the 1st 10 weeks

The other 10 percent or so are for severe birth defects, children who don't realize they were pregnant because they were raped. etc...

This does NOT need to be legislated and its an Offense to women to suggest it needs to be thus

Again, if you TRULY, truly, truly do NOT want abortion to ever happen: Fund and demand more comprehensive Sex Ed in schools, cheaper and more effective contraception AND

Paid 18 month maternity leave and heavily subsidized day care

THAT is how you can encourage births

But you will never win against what is the law of the Universe since the beginning: by process of natural selection, the woman chooses her mate, the men compete for her favor and those unfit for survival are not carried forward

I think you’re missing the political reality that this has ALREADY been legislated at the state level. Do you like that legislation? Do you think you’ll getbstates to just repeal what they have? Or do you want to start thinking about what might be reasonable legislation with a hope for some consistency?