Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's a novel thought for conservatives:

If you don't believe in abortions, DON'T HAVE ONE.

Leave everyone else alone. Leave them their FREEDOM and LIBERTY you claim to support. Their business is none of your business.

Except when Dems force medical treatments on our bodies right? Because really it's DEMS right to chose what women must do to their bodies.

Forced injections = okay

No abortion available = not okay.

Is that how your freedom in bodies works?

Would GOP forcing Deprovera shots on women be cool too? It would prevent all those maternal hemorrhaging deaths. And obviously unwanted pregnancies

+1000

I’m firmly and vocally pro-choice but Democrats have been utter tyrants re: Covid. Bodily autonomy for ALL. Both parties are inconsistent on this. After tormenting my family- and many many others especially children- for almost 2 years, I am very much enjoying the Dem handwringing over abortion. Nice to see y’all get a taste of your own medicine.

Why do you care what other people decide to do? It really is not your place to say what someone should do.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's a novel thought for conservatives:

If you don't believe in abortions, DON'T HAVE ONE.

Leave everyone else alone. Leave them their FREEDOM and LIBERTY you claim to support. Their business is none of your business.

It's not about your body, dumbass, it's about the other one living inside it. We protect children who cannot protect themselves. The right to life is constitutionally protected.

It isn’t another life until it can live outside of mine. It really isn’t that hard. Also I have to agree to the terms to grow it since it’s my body. Feel free to have your own.

That argument is scary. No child could survive without assistance until years after birth. And, shocker!, some freaks actually make the argument that post birth abortion should be legal using this very argument.

I meant it isn’t a life until it can live outside my body.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's a novel thought for conservatives:

If you don't believe in abortions, DON'T HAVE ONE.

Leave everyone else alone. Leave them their FREEDOM and LIBERTY you claim to support. Their business is none of your business.

It's not about your body, dumbass, it's about the other one living inside it. We protect children who cannot protect themselves. The right to life is constitutionally protected.

It isn’t another life until it can live outside of mine. It really isn’t that hard. Also I have to agree to the terms to grow it since it’s my body. Feel free to have your own.

That argument is scary. No child could survive without assistance until years after birth.

Of course children need “assistance after birth” but that “assistance” doesn’t need to come from the person in whose uterus it’s growing. That’s why adoption has always existed for women who choose it.

Thats a distinction without a difference. If a life needing assistance from another life devalues the former, it doesn’t matter which life it needs assistance from. Again, a very scary argument to make especially when taken to its logical conclusion.

It's a huge difference, actually.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's a novel thought for conservatives:

If you don't believe in abortions, DON'T HAVE ONE.

Leave everyone else alone. Leave them their FREEDOM and LIBERTY you claim to support. Their business is none of your business.

It's not about your body, dumbass, it's about the other one living inside it. We protect children who cannot protect themselves. The right to life is constitutionally protected.

It isn’t another life until it can live outside of mine. It really isn’t that hard. Also I have to agree to the terms to grow it since it’s my body. Feel free to have your own.

That argument is scary. No child could survive without assistance until years after birth. And, shocker!, some freaks actually make the argument that post birth abortion should be legal using this very argument.

No it's not. Because you're leaving out a very important fact: once born, the criminal laws that apply to everyone apply to the baby (neglect, murder, assault, etc.)

That's a key difference. Or did you deliberately leave that out?

I wish people would just admit they’re following what their religion is telling them to do. It’s underhanded that everyone is supposed to just acknowledge that a woman who is effectively in a Christian cult, and 5 out of the other member are also Catholic. Just fking admit it. They’re essentially following biblical rules on this. This is why young people are leaving the church in droves. Between the molestation of kids because of the guilt based teachings and the suppression of sexual desire, people just can’t get behind this regressive bullsht. I don’t like abortion, but if a little kid is pregnant she should not have to carry her rapists baby. It’s as simple as that. The court is filled with zealots and now the majority of the country is going to pay for it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's a novel thought for conservatives:

If you don't believe in abortions, DON'T HAVE ONE.

Leave everyone else alone. Leave them their FREEDOM and LIBERTY you claim to support. Their business is none of your business.

It's not about your body, dumbass, it's about the other one living inside it. We protect children who cannot protect themselves. The right to life is constitutionally protected.

It isn’t another life until it can live outside of mine. It really isn’t that hard. Also I have to agree to the terms to grow it since it’s my body. Feel free to have your own.

That argument is scary. No child could survive without assistance until years after birth.

Of course children need “assistance after birth” but that “assistance” doesn’t need to come from the person in whose uterus it’s growing. That’s why adoption has always existed for women who choose it.

Seriously. I can’t listen to these people who just refuse to argue in good faith. At this point in time, the mother is not just providing “assistance”, she is providing absolutely everything to the cost of her own body and potentially her life. No one else and nothing else can do it for her. It’s not a matter of someone else giving the baby a bottle. The fact that the anti-abortionists can’t acknowledge this shows the limits of their position and, quite frankly, their intelligence.

I think your ignorance of history is really telling. The fact (or allegation) that certain life is a burden on others (whether that burden falls on an individual or society at large) has been used to justify all sorts of monstrosities throughout history. It is lazy to call an argument with historical precedent bad faith.

If abortion is outlawed there will be more newborns who die at the hands of parents who don’t want them. And there will be more women who die getting unsafe abortions.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's a novel thought for conservatives:

If you don't believe in abortions, DON'T HAVE ONE.

Leave everyone else alone. Leave them their FREEDOM and LIBERTY you claim to support. Their business is none of your business.

It's not about your body, dumbass, it's about the other one living inside it. We protect children who cannot protect themselves. The right to life is constitutionally protected.

It isn’t another life until it can live outside of mine. It really isn’t that hard. Also I have to agree to the terms to grow it since it’s my body. Feel free to have your own.

That argument is scary. No child could survive without assistance until years after birth.

Of course children need “assistance after birth” but that “assistance” doesn’t need to come from the person in whose uterus it’s growing. That’s why adoption has always existed for women who choose it.

Seriously. I can’t listen to these people who just refuse to argue in good faith. At this point in time, the mother is not just providing “assistance”, she is providing absolutely everything to the cost of her own body and potentially her life. No one else and nothing else can do it for her. It’s not a matter of someone else giving the baby a bottle. The fact that the anti-abortionists can’t acknowledge this shows the limits of their position and, quite frankly, their intelligence.

I think your ignorance of history is really telling. The fact (or allegation) that certain life is a burden on others (whether that burden falls on an individual or society at large) has been used to justify all sorts of monstrosities throughout history. It is lazy to call an argument with historical precedent bad faith.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's a novel thought for conservatives:

If you don't believe in abortions, DON'T HAVE ONE.

Leave everyone else alone. Leave them their FREEDOM and LIBERTY you claim to support. Their business is none of your business.

It's not about your body, dumbass, it's about the other one living inside it. We protect children who cannot protect themselves. The right to life is constitutionally protected.

It isn’t another life until it can live outside of mine. It really isn’t that hard. Also I have to agree to the terms to grow it since it’s my body. Feel free to have your own.

That argument is scary. No child could survive without assistance until years after birth.

Of course children need “assistance after birth” but that “assistance” doesn’t need to come from the person in whose uterus it’s growing. That’s why adoption has always existed for women who choose it.

Thats a distinction without a difference. If a life needing assistance from another life devalues the former, it doesn’t matter which life it needs assistance from. Again, a very scary argument to make especially when taken to its logical conclusion.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's a novel thought for conservatives:

If you don't believe in abortions, DON'T HAVE ONE.

Leave everyone else alone. Leave them their FREEDOM and LIBERTY you claim to support. Their business is none of your business.

It's not about your body, dumbass, it's about the other one living inside it. We protect children who cannot protect themselves. The right to life is constitutionally protected.

It isn’t another life until it can live outside of mine. It really isn’t that hard. Also I have to agree to the terms to grow it since it’s my body. Feel free to have your own.

That argument is scary. No child could survive without assistance until years after birth.

Of course children need “assistance after birth” but that “assistance” doesn’t need to come from the person in whose uterus it’s growing. That’s why adoption has always existed for women who choose it.

Seriously. I can’t listen to these people who just refuse to argue in good faith. At this point in time, the mother is not just providing “assistance”, she is providing absolutely everything to the cost of her own body and potentially her life. No one else and nothing else can do it for her. It’s not a matter of someone else giving the baby a bottle. The fact that the anti-abortionists can’t acknowledge this shows the limits of their position and, quite frankly, their intelligence.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's a novel thought for conservatives:

If you don't believe in abortions, DON'T HAVE ONE.

Leave everyone else alone. Leave them their FREEDOM and LIBERTY you claim to support. Their business is none of your business.

It's not about your body, dumbass, it's about the other one living inside it. We protect children who cannot protect themselves. The right to life is constitutionally protected.

It isn’t another life until it can live outside of mine. It really isn’t that hard. Also I have to agree to the terms to grow it since it’s my body. Feel free to have your own.

That argument is scary. No child could survive without assistance until years after birth.

Of course children need “assistance after birth” but that “assistance” doesn’t need to come from the person in whose uterus it’s growing. That’s why adoption has always existed for women who choose it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's a novel thought for conservatives:

If you don't believe in abortions, DON'T HAVE ONE.

Leave everyone else alone. Leave them their FREEDOM and LIBERTY you claim to support. Their business is none of your business.

It's not about your body, dumbass, it's about the other one living inside it. We protect children who cannot protect themselves. The right to life is constitutionally protected.

It isn’t another life until it can live outside of mine. It really isn’t that hard. Also I have to agree to the terms to grow it since it’s my body. Feel free to have your own.

That argument is scary. No child could survive without assistance until years after birth. And, shocker!, some freaks actually make the argument that post birth abortion should be legal using this very argument.

Citation please.

Delegate Tran (D) in Virginia regarding her abortion bill. Listen at 1:30 minute mark.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMFzZ5I30dg

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's a novel thought for conservatives:

If you don't believe in abortions, DON'T HAVE ONE.

Leave everyone else alone. Leave them their FREEDOM and LIBERTY you claim to support. Their business is none of your business.

It's not about your body, dumbass, it's about the other one living inside it. We protect children who cannot protect themselves. The right to life is constitutionally protected.

It isn’t another life until it can live outside of mine. It really isn’t that hard. Also I have to agree to the terms to grow it since it’s my body. Feel free to have your own.

That argument is scary. No child could survive without assistance until years after birth. And, shocker!, some freaks actually make the argument that post birth abortion should be legal using this very argument.

Citation please.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's a novel thought for conservatives:

If you don't believe in abortions, DON'T HAVE ONE.

Leave everyone else alone. Leave them their FREEDOM and LIBERTY you claim to support. Their business is none of your business.

Except when Dems force medical treatments on our bodies right? Because really it's DEMS right to chose what women must do to their bodies.

Forced injections = okay

No abortion available = not okay.

Is that how your freedom in bodies works?

Would GOP forcing Deprovera shots on women be cool too? It would prevent all those maternal hemorrhaging deaths. And obviously unwanted pregnancies

There is a Constitutional right to an abortion. There is no Constitutional right to refuse a vaccine in the face of a destructive global pandemic.

People with a brain disagree. Even those who support Roe on principle acknowledges that the decision was wrong.

DP. First of all, yes women have a constitutional right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Pregnancy is always a risk to any woman’s health, and medical procedures like abortion are available for her to choose for that reason. It is up to a pregnant women to decide whether to risk her life to carry a baby to term or not. Saying otherwise shows how sick in the head you are. Getting a vaccine is not a threat to your life unless you are one of the very few people that are medically exempt; furthermore there are NO blanket vaccine mandates, no one is forcing anyone to get one. You have a choice. It may limit your life in different ways if you choose not to get a vaccine. But you have a choice.

Again, get bent.

This is such an oblivious argument.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's a novel thought for conservatives:

If you don't believe in abortions, DON'T HAVE ONE.

Leave everyone else alone. Leave them their FREEDOM and LIBERTY you claim to support. Their business is none of your business.

It's not about your body, dumbass, it's about the other one living inside it. We protect children who cannot protect themselves. The right to life is constitutionally protected.

It isn’t another life until it can live outside of mine. It really isn’t that hard. Also I have to agree to the terms to grow it since it’s my body. Feel free to have your own.

That argument is scary. No child could survive without assistance until years after birth. And, shocker!, some freaks actually make the argument that post birth abortion should be legal using this very argument.