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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's an Instruction manual for Those who want to decrease Abortion in the USA:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7971545/

An excerpt:

1) People in the Netherlands consider unplanned pregnancy to be a large problem that society and decision-makers should and do seriously address. The abortion rate fluctuates between 5 to 7/1000 women of reproductive age, the lowest abortion rate in the world.



2) Very large scale, nonmoralistic, public education campaigns that are positive towards teenage sexual behavior appear to be successful. Teens have wide access to contraceptive services through general practitioners who maintain confidentiality and do not require a vaginal exam and through subsidized family planning clinics.

3) Acceptance of contraception preceded liberalization of abortion. Society accepts abortion as only a last resort. The sexual sterilization rate( vasectomy) is higher than that in other European countries (25% vs. 0-23%). Special family planning programs in the Netherlands target groups at risk of unwanted pregnancy, particularly teenage pregnancy. Almost all secondary schools and about 50% of primary schools address sexuality and contraception.

I've stated this many times.. forced vasectomies. 99% of children will be wanted and no need for abortion for unwanted pregnancies. Problem solved. I'm sure pro-birth men would all agree, right?

Our birthrate has reached crisis lows. Why would we force vasectomies?

To prevent illegal abortions.

[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 believe that it is my obligation, and indeed the obligation of a sane, moral society, to protect "your fetus" from you and your ill intent.

Then you want civil unrest. You are nothing but a religious crusader.

No, I do not want civil unrest. How in the world do you read that from what I wrote? We, as a moral society, have an obligation to protect and aid the weakest among us. That includes the unborn. If we abandon that obligation, we are no longer a humane people. What's so hard to understand about that?

dp.. how are you willing to protect that child once the child is born?

Not by ending its life

[Anonymous]

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 believe that it is my obligation, and indeed the obligation of a sane, moral society, to protect "your fetus" from you and your ill intent.

Then you want civil unrest. You are nothing but a religious crusader.

No, I do not want civil unrest. How in the world do you read that from what I wrote? We, as a moral society, have an obligation to protect and aid the weakest among us. That includes the unborn. If we abandon that obligation, we are no longer a humane people. What's so hard to understand about that?

You’re going about it backwards. You have to make the LIFE part better; don’t force the BIRTH part.

And, ultimately it’s still up to each women - many who are living, breathing vulnerable people already in our society. You still can’t force women to be pregnant, give birth, or become a parent against their will. Period.

Women have personal liberty.

[Anonymous]

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 believe that it is my obligation, and indeed the obligation of a sane, moral society, to protect "your fetus" from you and your ill intent.

Then you want civil unrest. You are nothing but a religious crusader.

No, I do not want civil unrest. How in the world do you read that from what I wrote? We, as a moral society, have an obligation to protect and aid the weakest among us. That includes the unborn. If we abandon that obligation, we are no longer a humane people. What's so hard to understand about that?

Of course you want civil unrest because we are telling you directly that you are never going to accept you taking away our rights on issues that are not clear cut right/wrong.

Don’t you understand that I feel just as much an “obligation” to protect innocent people from religious authoritarians like you? But yet I don’t pass laws outlawing your religion or way of life. That’s because I don’t feel a need to control every other human as long as I am allowed to live my life peacefully. The problem is with people like you who refuse to exchange the favor and stay out of my life when I don’t want to have anything at all to do with you.

The result can only be outright hostility since there is no way to reconcile our differences other than “live and let live”. If you refuse to agree to that then we will be fighting for eternity.

[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 believe that it is my obligation, and indeed the obligation of a sane, moral society, to protect "your fetus" from you and your ill intent.

Then you want civil unrest. You are nothing but a religious crusader.

No, I do not want civil unrest. How in the world do you read that from what I wrote? We, as a moral society, have an obligation to protect and aid the weakest among us. That includes the unborn. If we abandon that obligation, we are no longer a humane people. What's so hard to understand about that?

dp.. how are you willing to protect that child once the child is born?

Not by ending its life

So then ya got nothin’.

[Anonymous]

Once more time: To THOSE WHO abhor ABORTION: if you truly , truly can't bear to see a single Embryo Aborted then best way to avoid that is :

MASSIVE Investment in Sex Education in schools starting in Elementary school AND Improve Access to cheap and affordable BIRTH CONTROL

The Dutch have both and have the Lowest Abortion rate in the World ( 1/3 the US rate): https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7971545/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Once more time: To THOSE WHO abhor ABORTION: if you truly , truly can't bear to see a single Embryo Aborted then best way to avoid that is :

MASSIVE Investment in Sex Education in schools starting in Elementary school AND Improve Access to cheap and affordable BIRTH CONTROL

The Dutch have both and have the Lowest Abortion rate in the World ( 1/3 the US rate): https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7971545/

You don’t seem to understand. They don’t respond to rational arguments. They never will. They are motivated by religious dogma and birth control is not supported by this dogma. So your argument is a huge waste of time. This is a war against fundamentalist religion. That’s the fundamental issue that we are dealing with.

[Anonymous]

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 believe that it is my obligation, and indeed the obligation of a sane, moral society, to protect "your fetus" from you and your ill intent.

Then you want civil unrest. You are nothing but a religious crusader.

No, I do not want civil unrest. How in the world do you read that from what I wrote? We, as a moral society, have an obligation to protect and aid the weakest among us. That includes the unborn. If we abandon that obligation, we are no longer a humane people. What's so hard to understand about that?

Guns. Guns. Guns. Innocent children in this country scared to go to school because they might be blown to pieces by a crazy gunman.

[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.

I am quite right. They have taken the right to choose away from women, leaving it to voters in each state to make whatever restrictions they want. Catch up. The Court has stolen our rights.

The Court has placed the burden of abortion law where it belongs - with the voters. They should never have had to legislate from the bench in the first place. The states vote on capital punishment, gun and voting laws, among others. Now they will vote on abortion. If you are a citizen, you will be voting on this issue.

[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.

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.

Do you even hear yourself? When - in your lifetime - have women been "oppressed"?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Thank you. I was looking for a list like this.

Cool.
Thank goodness we live in washington DC.

[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.

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.

Do you even hear yourself? When - in your lifetime - have women been "oppressed"?

Ummm. My entire lifetime? 40+ years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Do you even hear yourself? When - in your lifetime - have women been "oppressed"?

Ummm. My entire lifetime? 40+ years.

DP That sounds more of a you issue than anything systemic.

[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.

Yes, that raped ten-year-old made a choice.

Honestly you forced birthers are so disgusting. You force children to bear the babies of their rapists. I don’t know how anyone who does that can claim any sort of moral high ground.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yes, that raped ten-year-old made a choice.

Honestly you forced birthers are so disgusting. You force children to bear the babies of their rapists. I don’t know how anyone who does that can claim any sort of moral high ground.

There are provisions for rape, incest and health of the mother, which I suspect you know.