Anonymous wrote:Meanwhile in Texas, a woman having a miscarriage was denied the medication to help it pass by a CVS pharmacy that said it couldn't be sure she wasn't using it to have an abortion.

A big middle finger to all of you who think banning abortion is a-okay. It's just going to get worse.

This article by a doctor in Alabama is a pretty good view of what's to come: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/05/roe-dobbs-abortion-ban-reproductive-medicine-alabama.htm

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do you think this decision would force parents to allow invasive medical care for infants that are born with severe medical problems? I can see that happening. If you forced me to give birth to a child I knew had very little chance, could you force me to make that child suffer through surgeries and other interventions after birth?

This is all so messed up.

I doubt it. It's well-established that forced-birthers don't give a f** about babies after they are born.

No more a fact than if I claimed that abortionists like you don't care if babies live or die.

Actually completely different. An embryo is not a baby.

Fine. Abortionists like you can say you're pregnant with an embryo. Women i know say they're pregnant with a baby.

I call my dog a baby. Does that make it a person? 🤔

No, but we don’t allow you to kill your dog because you made a mistake and can’t take care of it — we let you put it up for adoption or you give it to a family member or something. So that’s a shitty point that you made, sorry.

Needless to say I’m anti abortion, but I’m still pro choice because I’m generally pretty libertarian. I would never get an abortion because I think it’s wrong on many levels and I believe in accountability in life but whether other people do it is not my business.

Libertarian is another word for Republican but trying to not call yourself a Republican. Even my SO who for many years called themselves a Libertarian said this.

This is a good read and echoes what a lot of pro-choice posters here have been saying. We are and need to stay a big tent on this.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am sickened by what is happening to the U.S.

Yes, millions of babies, many from Black and Hispanic families, being aborted.

Millions of living, breathing WOMEN who were safely able to end their pregnancy.

Millions of WOMEN who weren't forced to continue a pregnancy or give birth against their will.

Millions of WOMEN who were able to make medical decisions with their doctors without religious fanatics forcing their beliefs on them.

I'm a woman. MOST women out of the 60+ million who aborted their babies werent forced to have sex, get pregnant, and have medical issues. Many of those women need to think smarter and quit using abortion as a means to get rid of a baby.

Sorry, you don't get to insert yourself into a decision between a woman and her doctor. You don't get to force your will on women's bodies.

There are many laws that we may or may not like. I'm not forcing my will on you.

The people who you vote for are.

Here’s their latest:

From the House Republican sponsor of the bill, when pressed on the very limited exception for rape and incest, and whether she understands why that would be unworkable in cases of incest:

“I am OK with preserving the life of the child,” Wendi Stearman, the Republican sponsor, responded. “The child was not part of that decision.”

Which child, Wendi? Which child’s life should be preserved because they did not have a say in the incest that resulted in a child becoming pregnant?

Anonymous wrote:Meanwhile in Texas, a woman having a miscarriage was denied the medication to help it pass by a CVS pharmacy that said it couldn't be sure she wasn't using it to have an abortion.

A big middle finger to all of you who think banning abortion is a-okay. It's just going to get worse.

Sorry, it was a Walgreens. But if you read the thread of posts you'll see the doctor wouldn't send the prescription to a CVS because he thought it wouldn't get filled. The woman had to got to a different pharmacy to finally get it filled.

That is NOT acceptable.

Meanwhile in Texas, a woman having a miscarriage was denied the medication to help it pass by a CVS pharmacy that said it couldn't be sure she wasn't using it to have an abortion.

A big middle finger to all of you who think banning abortion is a-okay. It's just going to get worse.

And sorry to hear about your unwanted pregnancy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do you think this decision would force parents to allow invasive medical care for infants that are born with severe medical problems? I can see that happening. If you forced me to give birth to a child I knew had very little chance, could you force me to make that child suffer through surgeries and other interventions after birth?

This is all so messed up.

I doubt it. It's well-established that forced-birthers don't give a f** about babies after they are born.

No more a fact than if I claimed that abortionists like you don't care if babies live or die.

Actually completely different. An embryo is not a baby.

Fine. Abortionists like you can say you're pregnant with an embryo. Women i know say they're pregnant with a baby.

I call my dog a baby. Does that make it a person? 🤔

No, but we don’t allow you to kill your dog because you made a mistake and can’t take care of it — we let you put it up for adoption or you give it to a family member or something. So that’s a shitty point that you made, sorry.

Needless to say I’m anti abortion, but I’m still pro choice because I’m generally pretty libertarian. I would never get an abortion because I think it’s wrong on many levels and I believe in accountability in life but whether other people do it is not my business.

Huh? You can euthanize a dog pretty easily.

My point was that using a cutesy label doesn’t change the underlying facts.

I think most pro-choice people are “anti abortion” for themselves. They just don’t want to force their views on others.

I was anti-abortion for myself until I had an unwanted pregnancy. You never know if you will be that person until it happens to you. And I don't want to go into details about my pregnancy, but I didn't conceive in a loving relationship. I'm glad I had options.

Very true. Even for myself, I’d like to have options.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do you think this decision would force parents to allow invasive medical care for infants that are born with severe medical problems? I can see that happening. If you forced me to give birth to a child I knew had very little chance, could you force me to make that child suffer through surgeries and other interventions after birth?

This is all so messed up.

I doubt it. It's well-established that forced-birthers don't give a f** about babies after they are born.

No more a fact than if I claimed that abortionists like you don't care if babies live or die.

Actually completely different. An embryo is not a baby.

Fine. Abortionists like you can say you're pregnant with an embryo. Women i know say they're pregnant with a baby.

I call my dog a baby. Does that make it a person? 🤔

No, but we don’t allow you to kill your dog because you made a mistake and can’t take care of it — we let you put it up for adoption or you give it to a family member or something. So that’s a shitty point that you made, sorry.

Needless to say I’m anti abortion, but I’m still pro choice because I’m generally pretty libertarian. I would never get an abortion because I think it’s wrong on many levels and I believe in accountability in life but whether other people do it is not my business.

Huh? You can euthanize a dog pretty easily.

My point was that using a cutesy label doesn’t change the underlying facts.

I think most pro-choice people are “anti abortion” for themselves. They just don’t want to force their views on others.

I was anti-abortion for myself until I had an unwanted pregnancy. You never know if you will be that person until it happens to you. And I don't want to go into details about my pregnancy, but I didn't conceive in a loving relationship. I'm glad I had options.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do you think this decision would force parents to allow invasive medical care for infants that are born with severe medical problems? I can see that happening. If you forced me to give birth to a child I knew had very little chance, could you force me to make that child suffer through surgeries and other interventions after birth?

This is all so messed up.

I doubt it. It's well-established that forced-birthers don't give a f** about babies after they are born.

No more a fact than if I claimed that abortionists like you don't care if babies live or die.

Actually completely different. An embryo is not a baby.

Fine. Abortionists like you can say you're pregnant with an embryo. Women i know say they're pregnant with a baby.

I call my dog a baby. Does that make it a person? 🤔

No, but we don’t allow you to kill your dog because you made a mistake and can’t take care of it — we let you put it up for adoption or you give it to a family member or something. So that’s a shitty point that you made, sorry.

Needless to say I’m anti abortion, but I’m still pro choice because I’m generally pretty libertarian. I would never get an abortion because I think it’s wrong on many levels and I believe in accountability in life but whether other people do it is not my business.

Huh? You can euthanize a dog pretty easily.

My point was that using a cutesy label doesn’t change the underlying facts.

I think most pro-choice people are “anti abortion” for themselves. They just don’t want to force their views on others.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do you think this decision would force parents to allow invasive medical care for infants that are born with severe medical problems? I can see that happening. If you forced me to give birth to a child I knew had very little chance, could you force me to make that child suffer through surgeries and other interventions after birth?

This is all so messed up.

I doubt it. It's well-established that forced-birthers don't give a f** about babies after they are born.

Truth.

See that the forced birthers voted against bill to ease the baby formula pain for babies and families.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do you think this decision would force parents to allow invasive medical care for infants that are born with severe medical problems? I can see that happening. If you forced me to give birth to a child I knew had very little chance, could you force me to make that child suffer through surgeries and other interventions after birth?

This is all so messed up.

I doubt it. It's well-established that forced-birthers don't give a f** about babies after they are born.

No more a fact than if I claimed that abortionists like you don't care if babies live or die.

Actually completely different. An embryo is not a baby.

Fine. Abortionists like you can say you're pregnant with an embryo. Women i know say they're pregnant with a baby.

I call my dog a baby. Does that make it a person? 🤔

No, but we don’t allow you to kill your dog because you made a mistake and can’t take care of it — we let you put it up for adoption or you give it to a family member or something. So that’s a shitty point that you made, sorry.

Needless to say I’m anti abortion, but I’m still pro choice because I’m generally pretty libertarian. I would never get an abortion because I think it’s wrong on many levels and I believe in accountability in life but whether other people do it is not my business.

Exactly - 11 years need to be accountable for being raped. Woman with ectopic pregnancies need to shut up and die it out. Women having sex are ipso facto whores that need to be accountable...

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do you think this decision would force parents to allow invasive medical care for infants that are born with severe medical problems? I can see that happening. If you forced me to give birth to a child I knew had very little chance, could you force me to make that child suffer through surgeries and other interventions after birth?

This is all so messed up.

I doubt it. It's well-established that forced-birthers don't give a f** about babies after they are born.

No more a fact than if I claimed that abortionists like you don't care if babies live or die.

Actually completely different. An embryo is not a baby.

Fine. Abortionists like you can say you're pregnant with an embryo. Women i know say they're pregnant with a baby.

I call my dog a baby. Does that make it a person? 🤔

No, but we don’t allow you to kill your dog because you made a mistake and can’t take care of it — we let you put it up for adoption or you give it to a family member or something. So that’s a shitty point that you made, sorry.

Needless to say I’m anti abortion, but I’m still pro choice because I’m generally pretty libertarian. I would never get an abortion because I think it’s wrong on many levels and I believe in accountability in life but whether other people do it is not my business.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do you think this decision would force parents to allow invasive medical care for infants that are born with severe medical problems? I can see that happening. If you forced me to give birth to a child I knew had very little chance, could you force me to make that child suffer through surgeries and other interventions after birth?

This is all so messed up.

I doubt it. It's well-established that forced-birthers don't give a f** about babies after they are born.

No more a fact than if I claimed that abortionists like you don't care if babies live or die.

Really? Politically, the group of people who support the right to have an abortion also support universal healthcare, support for families with young children, high levels of support for programs like WIC, etc. The group that supports preventing women from seeking life-saving medical-care also supports dismantling programs that provide universal healthcare, support to families with young children, etc. If you don't want to be painted with the "I DGAF about actual babies who are born" brush, stop supporting people that DGAF about babies who are born.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do you think this decision would force parents to allow invasive medical care for infants that are born with severe medical problems? I can see that happening. If you forced me to give birth to a child I knew had very little chance, could you force me to make that child suffer through surgeries and other interventions after birth?

This is all so messed up.

I doubt it. It's well-established that forced-birthers don't give a f** about babies after they are born.

Truth.