Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Women should be able to abort only if the father consents, but a woman shouldn't be able to kill a man's baby because she has a change of heart after consensual intercourse.

Only if the man agrees to gestate it in his own body for 9 months. Then he has a say. Otherwise no. He’s not putting himself at risk for potential death or disfigurement or health problems so he isn’t the one with veto power.

Surely the life of a child is infinitely more valuable than the inconvenience of carrying a fetus for nine months. On what planet do we equate human life with a temporary medical condition?

If the woman prefers not to risk those complications, she should not engage in intercourse and risk creating a baby she does not want.

Ok old white dude.

Eh. Don’t feed the forced birther trolls. Women’s lives, work and accomplishments are worth nothing to them. Most of them stopped developing emotionally around age 11 and live in a world of fairy tales where men are manly and women are there for the men.

Just remember that the GOP, with Project 2025, will force women out of the workplace and into as many children as she is forced to have by her particular circumstances. “Traditional” womanhood is a feature of fascism and it’s one these control freaks are most excited about.

I know I shouldn't let it get to me, but at this point when I hear anyone describe pregnancy, labor, and birth as an "inconvenience" I want to effing SCREAM.

Like the moron at 15:18 who likens giving a bottle to donating the use of one’s body and organs for ten months? Yes, but they’re stupid. Stupid people who hate women.

I looked at the Republican women thread and I realize they think they’re making calm, rational, cogent political points, but their party will obliterate their rights. Women are not people in the GOP. Any party that thinks pregnancy, birth and recovery is a mere inconvenience does not value the woman who did that.

And as someone said above: forced birthers’ arguments are not getting better. If the wrong woman dies for want of a simple medical procedure, it’s going to be a bloodbath at the polls for the GOP, and the odds of a woman dying for lack of an abortion between now and November is 100%. It’s just whether or not her family is willing to go public and if it catches the public’s eye. George Floyd was murdered in cold blood and that changed a lot of people’s views on police brutality.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Women should be able to abort only if the father consents, but a woman shouldn't be able to kill a man's baby because she has a change of heart after consensual intercourse.

Only if the man agrees to gestate it in his own body for 9 months. Then he has a say. Otherwise no. He’s not putting himself at risk for potential death or disfigurement or health problems so he isn’t the one with veto power.

Surely the life of a child is infinitely more valuable than the inconvenience of carrying a fetus for nine months. On what planet do we equate human life with a temporary medical condition?

If the woman prefers not to risk those complications, she should not engage in intercourse and risk creating a baby she does not want.

Ok old white dude.

Eh. Don’t feed the forced birther trolls. Women’s lives, work and accomplishments are worth nothing to them. Most of them stopped developing emotionally around age 11 and live in a world of fairy tales where men are manly and women are there for the men.

Just remember that the GOP, with Project 2025, will force women out of the workplace and into as many children as she is forced to have by her particular circumstances. “Traditional” womanhood is a feature of fascism and it’s one these control freaks are most excited about.

I know I shouldn't let it get to me, but at this point when I hear anyone describe pregnancy, labor, and birth as an "inconvenience" I want to effing SCREAM.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If my husband isn't legally obligated to donate ANY organ to our children to keep them alive (kidney, blood, liver, etc) then why should i donate my entire BODY to keep them alive when they are INSIDE MY BODY?

It makes no sense?
Why keep a FETUS alive at all costs, but a child born and needs medical care, no parent is required to give any part of their body to keep that child alive.

A newborn is born completely defenseless and yes, the parents are required to care for him. We don’t say “well we can’t force you to give him milk or bring him indoors” - of course we require care or you’ll get arrested for abandonment or murder.

The poster said dad is not required to donate an organ or part of his body to the child should the child need it.

Anonymous wrote:If my husband isn't legally obligated to donate ANY organ to our children to keep them alive (kidney, blood, liver, etc) then why should i donate my entire BODY to keep them alive when they are INSIDE MY BODY?

It makes no sense?
Why keep a FETUS alive at all costs, but a child born and needs medical care, no parent is required to give any part of their body to keep that child alive.

A newborn is born completely defenseless and yes, the parents are required to care for him. We don’t say “well we can’t force you to give him milk or bring him indoors” - of course we require care or you’ll get arrested for abandonment or murder.

I love this so much.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Women should be able to abort only if the father consents, but a woman shouldn't be able to kill a man's baby because she has a change of heart after consensual intercourse.

Only if the man agrees to gestate it in his own body for 9 months. Then he has a say. Otherwise no. He’s not putting himself at risk for potential death or disfigurement or health problems so he isn’t the one with veto power.

Surely the life of a child is infinitely more valuable than the inconvenience of carrying a fetus for nine months. On what planet do we equate human life with a temporary medical condition?

If the woman prefers not to risk those complications, she should not engage in intercourse and risk creating a baby she does not want.

Sometimes she does not willfully engage.

And sometimes she desperately wants that baby, but finds out after getting pregnant that having that baby will kill or permanently disfigure her.
Pregnancy isn’t just an “inconvenience” for some women. If you are fortunate to have not been confronted with this decision in your life, consider yourself very lucky.

+1. Some very uninformed posters on here. Hopefully women and others voters with a clue will swamp the election and rid us all of dangerous ignorant anti-woman DJT.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Women should be able to abort only if the father consents, but a woman shouldn't be able to kill a man's baby because she has a change of heart after consensual intercourse.

Only if the man agrees to gestate it in his own body for 9 months. Then he has a say. Otherwise no. He’s not putting himself at risk for potential death or disfigurement or health problems so he isn’t the one with veto power.

Surely the life of a child is infinitely more valuable than the inconvenience of carrying a fetus for nine months. On what planet do we equate human life with a temporary medical condition?

If the woman prefers not to risk those complications, she should not engage in intercourse and risk creating a baby she does not want.

Sometimes she does not willfully engage.

And sometimes she desperately wants that baby, but finds out after getting pregnant that having that baby will kill or permanently disfigure her.
Pregnancy isn’t just an “inconvenience” for some women. If you are fortunate to have not been confronted with this decision in your life, consider yourself very lucky.

If my husband isn't legally obligated to donate ANY organ to our children to keep them alive (kidney, blood, liver, etc) then why should i donate my entire BODY to keep them alive when they are INSIDE MY BODY?

It makes no sense?
Why keep a FETUS alive at all costs, but a child born and needs medical care, no parent is required to give any part of their body to keep that child alive.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Women should be able to abort only if the father consents, but a woman shouldn't be able to kill a man's baby because she has a change of heart after consensual intercourse.

Only if the man agrees to gestate it in his own body for 9 months. Then he has a say. Otherwise no. He’s not putting himself at risk for potential death or disfigurement or health problems so he isn’t the one with veto power.

Surely the life of a child is infinitely more valuable than the inconvenience of carrying a fetus for nine months. On what planet do we equate human life with a temporary medical condition?

If the woman prefers not to risk those complications, she should not engage in intercourse and risk creating a baby she does not want.

I’ve had a friend who died from sudden, unexpected pregnancy complications for a much wanted baby. Any pregnancy can turn on a dime. It’s not just “inconvenience” What a cruel, crude and ignorant thing to say, the sort of thing someone who has never lived through a complicated pregnancy would say, the sort of thing from someone either very naive or devoid of empathy. Women’s lives mean something. And yes they should be valued more than the zygote inside them.

Not to forced birthers they don’t. Women’s lives, our thoughts, our wishes, our plans - nothing about women matters to forced birthers. That morula, that embryo, that fetus, it belongs to the man who put it there and it is therefore more important at all stages of development, goes the forced birther thinking. And lest you think I’m exaggerating, read the words of the forced birther calling pregnancy an “inconvenience.”

The thing that forced birthers don't consider is their argument never gets better.

As more and more and more people see what happens when abortion is inaccessible, the more people will become pro choice.

Because it will be their daughters, sisters, mothers and wives dying.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Women should be able to abort only if the father consents, but a woman shouldn't be able to kill a man's baby because she has a change of heart after consensual intercourse.

Only if the man agrees to gestate it in his own body for 9 months. Then he has a say. Otherwise no. He’s not putting himself at risk for potential death or disfigurement or health problems so he isn’t the one with veto power.

Women aren’t people in the GOP.

Horseshit.

Bodily autonomy and self determination is the basic degree of liberty. We as a nation denied it to African slaves and to Native people. Denying someone the right to determine is a way of erasing a person.

And so: women aren’t people in the GOP. Swear all you like, but forced birtherism is about erasing women and forcing them back into the home, making them live in fear of pregnancy. The GOP wants to take away birth control and that is the next step in the GOP’s erasure of women. You’ll probably try to “nuh uh” back about trans women and sports or something equally idiotic and off topic, but the fact is that a woman choosing when to have children is a universal right among women.

+1

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Women should be able to abort only if the father consents, but a woman shouldn't be able to kill a man's baby because she has a change of heart after consensual intercourse.

Only if the man agrees to gestate it in his own body for 9 months. Then he has a say. Otherwise no. He’s not putting himself at risk for potential death or disfigurement or health problems so he isn’t the one with veto power.

Surely the life of a child is infinitely more valuable than the inconvenience of carrying a fetus for nine months. On what planet do we equate human life with a temporary medical condition?

If the woman prefers not to risk those complications, she should not engage in intercourse and risk creating a baby she does not want.

FU

I’ve had a friend who died from sudden, unexpected pregnancy complications for a much wanted baby. Any pregnancy can turn on a dime. It’s not just “inconvenience” What a cruel, crude and ignorant thing to say, the sort of thing someone who has never lived through a complicated pregnancy would say, the sort of thing from someone either very naive or devoid of empathy. Women’s lives mean something. And yes they should be valued more than the zygote inside them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Women should be able to abort only if the father consents, but a woman shouldn't be able to kill a man's baby because she has a change of heart after consensual intercourse.

Only if the man agrees to gestate it in his own body for 9 months. Then he has a say. Otherwise no. He’s not putting himself at risk for potential death or disfigurement or health problems so he isn’t the one with veto power.

Surely the life of a child is infinitely more valuable than the inconvenience of carrying a fetus for nine months. On what planet do we equate human life with a temporary medical condition?

If the woman prefers not to risk those complications, she should not engage in intercourse and risk creating a baby she does not want.

Ok old white dude.

Eh. Don’t feed the forced birther trolls. Women’s lives, work and accomplishments are worth nothing to them. Most of them stopped developing emotionally around age 11 and live in a world of fairy tales where men are manly and women are there for the men.

Just remember that the GOP, with Project 2025, will force women out of the workplace and into as many children as she is forced to have by her particular circumstances. “Traditional” womanhood is a feature of fascism and it’s one these control freaks are most excited about.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Women should be able to abort only if the father consents, but a woman shouldn't be able to kill a man's baby because she has a change of heart after consensual intercourse.

Only if the man agrees to gestate it in his own body for 9 months. Then he has a say. Otherwise no. He’s not putting himself at risk for potential death or disfigurement or health problems so he isn’t the one with veto power.

Women aren’t people in the GOP.

Horseshit.

Bodily autonomy and self determination is the basic degree of liberty. We as a nation denied it to African slaves and to Native people. Denying someone the right to determine is a way of erasing a person.

And so: women aren’t people in the GOP. Swear all you like, but forced birtherism is about erasing women and forcing them back into the home, making them live in fear of pregnancy. The GOP wants to take away birth control and that is the next step in the GOP’s erasure of women. You’ll probably try to “nuh uh” back about trans women and sports or something equally idiotic and off topic, but the fact is that a woman choosing when to have children is a universal right among women.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Women should be able to abort only if the father consents, but a woman shouldn't be able to kill a man's baby because she has a change of heart after consensual intercourse.

Only if the man agrees to gestate it in his own body for 9 months. Then he has a say. Otherwise no. He’s not putting himself at risk for potential death or disfigurement or health problems so he isn’t the one with veto power.

Surely the life of a child is infinitely more valuable than the inconvenience of carrying a fetus for nine months. On what planet do we equate human life with a temporary medical condition?

If the woman prefers not to risk those complications, she should not engage in intercourse and risk creating a baby she does not want.

Ok old white dude.