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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who cares about the economy, or 2+ million illegals a year, or inflation or record high debt, or spiking crime everywhere, when we can go nuts about late term abortions?!?

First of all, thanks for openly telling us you are a racist so we don’t need to waste our time. Second, inflation is a global issue, much of it tied to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Crime is NOT up, but you’re right that gun violence, the most devastating and deadly problem in our country needs to be immediately addressed. SCOTUS’ recent ruling about concealed carry was clearly antithetical to living in a free and safe society and needs to be overturned. We need strong gun control. However, I don’t care about a single issue more than I care about women’s bodily autonomy and the women who will suffer and die preventable deaths when they’re denied medical care. Again, overturning Roe means overturning the right to ANY abortion. Roe and Casey did not guarantee the right to late term abortions.

Illegal presence isn’t racial you weirdo.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

How did those provisions work out for that girl? Didn't she have to go to another state?

We will soon be like Brazil, where 17,000 children give birth every year.

Why does Brazil have so many sexually active children?

Why are you a troll?

PP here. I'm not a troll, and I'm not the one who said 17,000 children give birth in Brazil. Is that an accurate statistic? If so, I was wondering why.

Ok. Research it. And research the case of the 10 year old in ohio while you are at it. But whatever the reasons, the solution is not to force the kids to give birth.

Fortunately, the child got help as will many many other women trapped in this hell. I am in a free choice state and we will be part of the free choice network.

[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?

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.

A "religious authoritarian?" Please. You have no idea who I am, or what my religious beliefs are, if they even exist. This has nothing to do with religion. You brought up that topic, not me.

So by your post, I am to assume that if you were at the park with your child and saw someone beating the hell out of a two-year-old, you would do nothing, because you believe in "live and let live." Did I get that right? You assume no obligation to help the weak, the vulnerable, those unable to protect themselves from the harm that others can inflict upon them.

You are a seriously disturbed individual.

[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?

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.

A "religious authoritarian?" Please. You have no idea who I am, or what my religious beliefs are, if they even exist. This has nothing to do with religion. You brought up that topic, not me.

So by your post, I am to assume that if you were at the park with your child and saw someone beating the hell out of a two-year-old, you would do nothing, because you believe in "live and let live." Did I get that right? You assume no obligation to help the weak, the vulnerable, those unable to protect themselves from the harm that others can inflict upon them.

You are a seriously disturbed individual.

An embryo or fetus is not a 2 year old. I understand that to you, they are the same but you cannot put that belief on me.

Of course you try to intervene at the playground.

[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?

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.

A "religious authoritarian?" Please. You have no idea who I am, or what my religious beliefs are, if they even exist. This has nothing to do with religion. You brought up that topic, not me.

So by your post, I am to assume that if you were at the park with your child and saw someone beating the hell out of a two-year-old, you would do nothing, because you believe in "live and let live." Did I get that right? You assume no obligation to help the weak, the vulnerable, those unable to protect themselves from the harm that others can inflict upon them.

You are a seriously disturbed individual.

DP. You're starting off with a false premise that everyone is in agreement with you about whatever your view is about when the cells carried by a woman are a person, a life, et cetera and that is what makes you really far off base with your analogy of someone beating up a 2 year old or suggesting that everyone who disagrees with you about that definition is somehow "seriously disturbed." The mere fact that you cannot even accept that there is a valid and legitimate difference of opinion on when life begins, when personhood begins makes you an authoritarian.

[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 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.

A "religious authoritarian?" Please. You have no idea who I am, or what my religious beliefs are, if they even exist. This has nothing to do with religion. You brought up that topic, not me.

So by your post, I am to assume that if you were at the park with your child and saw someone beating the hell out of a two-year-old, you would do nothing, because you believe in "live and let live." Did I get that right? You assume no obligation to help the weak, the vulnerable, those unable to protect themselves from the harm that others can inflict upon them.

You are a seriously disturbed individual.

An embryo or fetus is not a 2 year old. I understand that to you, they are the same but you cannot put that belief on me.

Of course you try to intervene at the playground.

It's not a matter of opinion, your's or mine. It's a matter of science and biology. "Human life," as science defines it, requires 3 things to conceptualize: an egg, a sperm and a host. Once those meet in formation, it is the beginning of personhood. If you don't want your body to serve as a host, you can take steps to prevent that before it becomes one.

[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 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.

A "religious authoritarian?" Please. You have no idea who I am, or what my religious beliefs are, if they even exist. This has nothing to do with religion. You brought up that topic, not me.

So by your post, I am to assume that if you were at the park with your child and saw someone beating the hell out of a two-year-old, you would do nothing, because you believe in "live and let live." Did I get that right? You assume no obligation to help the weak, the vulnerable, those unable to protect themselves from the harm that others can inflict upon them.

You are a seriously disturbed individual.

An embryo or fetus is not a 2 year old. I understand that to you, they are the same but you cannot put that belief on me.

Of course you try to intervene at the playground.

It's not a matter of opinion, your's or mine. It's a matter of science and biology. "Human life," as science defines it, requires 3 things to conceptualize: an egg, a sperm and a host. Once those meet in formation, it is the beginning of personhood. If you don't want your body to serve as a host, you can take steps to prevent that before it becomes one.

In total agreement that the way to reduce abortions is to prevent unwanted pregnancies. Give that everything we got imo.

What you are not understanding is that an abortion ban is just as threatening to a woman that wants to conceive and have a child as one that does not. Reproduction does not fit into your pretty little formula. You sound ignorant with that.

There are so so so so many things that can go wrong. You need to stay out of it if it is not your own pregnancy.

[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 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.

A "religious authoritarian?" Please. You have no idea who I am, or what my religious beliefs are, if they even exist. This has nothing to do with religion. You brought up that topic, not me.

So by your post, I am to assume that if you were at the park with your child and saw someone beating the hell out of a two-year-old, you would do nothing, because you believe in "live and let live." Did I get that right? You assume no obligation to help the weak, the vulnerable, those unable to protect themselves from the harm that others can inflict upon them.

You are a seriously disturbed individual.

An embryo or fetus is not a 2 year old. I understand that to you, they are the same but you cannot put that belief on me.

Of course you try to intervene at the playground.

It's not a matter of opinion, your's or mine. It's a matter of science and biology. "Human life," as science defines it, requires 3 things to conceptualize: an egg, a sperm and a host. Once those meet in formation, it is the beginning of personhood. If you don't want your body to serve as a host, you can take steps to prevent that before it becomes one.

In total agreement that the way to reduce abortions is to prevent unwanted pregnancies. Give that everything we got imo.

What you are not understanding is that an abortion ban is just as threatening to a woman that wants to conceive and have a child as one that does not. Reproduction does not fit into your pretty little formula. You sound ignorant with that.

There are so so so so many things that can go wrong. You need to stay out of it if it is not your own pregnancy.

Of course. Agreed. And I agree that abortion should be legal, safe and available when something does go drastically wrong, and the mother's life is endangered. But you and I both know that that is a small fraction of the cases of abortion that are conducted. An "oops," and "inconvenience," a "he's just not into me" does not justify taking human life.

[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 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.

A "religious authoritarian?" Please. You have no idea who I am, or what my religious beliefs are, if they even exist. This has nothing to do with religion. You brought up that topic, not me.

So by your post, I am to assume that if you were at the park with your child and saw someone beating the hell out of a two-year-old, you would do nothing, because you believe in "live and let live." Did I get that right? You assume no obligation to help the weak, the vulnerable, those unable to protect themselves from the harm that others can inflict upon them.

You are a seriously disturbed individual.

An embryo or fetus is not a 2 year old. I understand that to you, they are the same but you cannot put that belief on me.

Of course you try to intervene at the playground.

It's not a matter of opinion, your's or mine. It's a matter of science and biology. "Human life," as science defines it, requires 3 things to conceptualize: an egg, a sperm and a host. Once those meet in formation, it is the beginning of personhood. If you don't want your body to serve as a host, you can take steps to prevent that before it becomes one.

In total agreement that the way to reduce abortions is to prevent unwanted pregnancies. Give that everything we got imo.

What you are not understanding is that an abortion ban is just as threatening to a woman that wants to conceive and have a child as one that does not. Reproduction does not fit into your pretty little formula. You sound ignorant with that.

There are so so so so many things that can go wrong. You need to stay out of it if it is not your own pregnancy.

Of course. Agreed. And I agree that abortion should be legal, safe and available when something does go drastically wrong, and the mother's life is endangered. But you and I both know that that is a small fraction of the cases of abortion that are conducted. An "oops," and "inconvenience," a "he's just not into me" does not justify taking human life.

Look up how many people struggle with infertility issues and seek help and get back to me with your small fraction. You sound clueless.

[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 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.

A "religious authoritarian?" Please. You have no idea who I am, or what my religious beliefs are, if they even exist. This has nothing to do with religion. You brought up that topic, not me.

So by your post, I am to assume that if you were at the park with your child and saw someone beating the hell out of a two-year-old, you would do nothing, because you believe in "live and let live." Did I get that right? You assume no obligation to help the weak, the vulnerable, those unable to protect themselves from the harm that others can inflict upon them.

You are a seriously disturbed individual.

An embryo or fetus is not a 2 year old. I understand that to you, they are the same but you cannot put that belief on me.

Of course you try to intervene at the playground.

It's not a matter of opinion, your's or mine. It's a matter of science and biology. "Human life," as science defines it, requires 3 things to conceptualize: an egg, a sperm and a host. Once those meet in formation, it is the beginning of personhood. If you don't want your body to serve as a host, you can take steps to prevent that before it becomes one.

+1

[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 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.

A "religious authoritarian?" Please. You have no idea who I am, or what my religious beliefs are, if they even exist. This has nothing to do with religion. You brought up that topic, not me.

So by your post, I am to assume that if you were at the park with your child and saw someone beating the hell out of a two-year-old, you would do nothing, because you believe in "live and let live." Did I get that right? You assume no obligation to help the weak, the vulnerable, those unable to protect themselves from the harm that others can inflict upon them.

You are a seriously disturbed individual.

An embryo or fetus is not a 2 year old. I understand that to you, they are the same but you cannot put that belief on me.

Of course you try to intervene at the playground.

It's not a matter of opinion, your's or mine. It's a matter of science and biology. "Human life," as science defines it, requires 3 things to conceptualize: an egg, a sperm and a host. Once those meet in formation, it is the beginning of personhood. If you don't want your body to serve as a host, you can take steps to prevent that before it becomes one.

One could say the same about growing human skin cells or stem cells in a lab, sure they are living human cells and in medical science, they are doing things like growing replacement organs from them and one could theoretically clone and grow an entire new person from them but they are actually still a long ways off from personhood and we don't go around calling it murder every time a doctor performs a biopsy or some other routine procedure.

[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 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.

A "religious authoritarian?" Please. You have no idea who I am, or what my religious beliefs are, if they even exist. This has nothing to do with religion. You brought up that topic, not me.

So by your post, I am to assume that if you were at the park with your child and saw someone beating the hell out of a two-year-old, you would do nothing, because you believe in "live and let live." Did I get that right? You assume no obligation to help the weak, the vulnerable, those unable to protect themselves from the harm that others can inflict upon them.

You are a seriously disturbed individual.

An embryo or fetus is not a 2 year old. I understand that to you, they are the same but you cannot put that belief on me.

Of course you try to intervene at the playground.

It's not a matter of opinion, your's or mine. It's a matter of science and biology. "Human life," as science defines it, requires 3 things to conceptualize: an egg, a sperm and a host. Once those meet in formation, it is the beginning of personhood. If you don't want your body to serve as a host, you can take steps to prevent that before it becomes one.

-1. This is oversimplified nonsense.

[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?

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.

A "religious authoritarian?" Please. You have no idea who I am, or what my religious beliefs are, if they even exist. This has nothing to do with religion. You brought up that topic, not me.

So by your post, I am to assume that if you were at the park with your child and saw someone beating the hell out of a two-year-old, you would do nothing, because you believe in "live and let live." Did I get that right? You assume no obligation to help the weak, the vulnerable, those unable to protect themselves from the harm that others can inflict upon them.

You are a seriously disturbed individual.

My point is that reasonable people do not disagree that “beating the hell out of a two-year old” is wrong and abusive. This is not the case for abortion so therfor you should defer to individual belief.

[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?

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.

A "religious authoritarian?" Please. You have no idea who I am, or what my religious beliefs are, if they even exist. This has nothing to do with religion. You brought up that topic, not me.

So by your post, I am to assume that if you were at the park with your child and saw someone beating the hell out of a two-year-old, you would do nothing, because you believe in "live and let live." Did I get that right? You assume no obligation to help the weak, the vulnerable, those unable to protect themselves from the harm that others can inflict upon them.

You are a seriously disturbed individual.

And you are an advocate of child rape and on the side of child rapists. You are incredibly disgusting.

[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 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.

A "religious authoritarian?" Please. You have no idea who I am, or what my religious beliefs are, if they even exist. This has nothing to do with religion. You brought up that topic, not me.

So by your post, I am to assume that if you were at the park with your child and saw someone beating the hell out of a two-year-old, you would do nothing, because you believe in "live and let live." Did I get that right? You assume no obligation to help the weak, the vulnerable, those unable to protect themselves from the harm that others can inflict upon them.

You are a seriously disturbed individual.

An embryo or fetus is not a 2 year old. I understand that to you, they are the same but you cannot put that belief on me.

Of course you try to intervene at the playground.

It's not a matter of opinion, your's or mine. It's a matter of science and biology. "Human life," as science defines it, requires 3 things to conceptualize: an egg, a sperm and a host. Once those meet in formation, it is the beginning of personhood. If you don't want your body to serve as a host, you can take steps to prevent that before it becomes one.

Says the person advocating for the rape of ten-year-olds.