Reply to Roe v Wade struck down

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "Roe v Wade struck down"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][twitter]https://x.com/troy_in_tahoe/status/1834636862205366289?s=46&t=kf1qYlCXQnKgUhJWEIu2vg[/twitter][/quote]

It is very disappointing that major media is not reporting these stories. Not surprising, but disappointing. [/quote]

The only abortions illegalized by Dobbs were certain pre-viability abortions in conservative states. The odds that there are a sufficient number of bleed outs that ten thousand occurred among the population of women familiar with this relatively obscure commentator is zero. Thats not a political statement on my part; it's just a matter of whats even remotely plausible or not. [/quote]
Forced birthers just aren’t very bright.

Essentially all abortions were made illegal in forced birther states, including ones that forced birther women didn’t think “counted” as abortions.

At a minimum several thousand women online in these forced birthers states had poorly managed miscarriages or other early pregnancy complications.

The internet being what it is, word travels fast when some flaccid weird man claims it didn’t happen.

Women have died from these bans, guaranteed. [/quote]

I know you're constantly affirmed in your intelligence, but let me run something by you:

Before Dobbs, you could ban post-viability abortions. So to say that "essentially all abortions were made illegal" after Dobbs means that certain pre-viability abortions were made illegal; the post-viability abortions were *already* illegal. To suggest that tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of women have "bled out" because they couldn't get a pre-viability abortion is just so self-evidently untrue that really the only suitable epithet for it is "alternative facts."[/quote]
Is that how you comfort yourself? Didn’t your guy just get burned by making such a boneheaded assumption and sharing it with the wide world? [/quote]

I'm not sure who you mean by "[my] guy"-- I assume Trump said something?-- but I'm not really political and won't be voting for Trump. I am pro-life, but I posted here primarily because I was mystified that so many people here were uncritically prepared to believe a story that is so obviously substantially incorrect. To this board's credit, no one has been willing to say, [b]"no no, tens or hundreds of thousands deaths actually have resulted from this."[/b] Credit where credit's due, I suppose. [/quote]
That’s not something that anyone is claiming.[/quote]

I guess you haven't been following along, but I was responding to a claim that "over 10K ... women" "ble[d] out in a parking lot because of the loss of Roe v. Wade." I feel gross even writing those words because it'd be terrible if it were true, but there's just no way it is [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics