Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To those who think it should just go to the states:

Go even further back. We fought a civil war against states that wanted to keep slavery, remember? No surprise Mississippi is the bellwether.

Bloomberg had an article last week about growing sentiments in both blue and red states about national split….

…this is just going to accelerate this century. By 2100 there will be Atleast three countries where one once stood

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is the reason that carrying a child to term and then placing the baby up for adoption is mentally harmful, causes feelings of regret and sadness, vs aborting the baby and not having mental harm and feelings of regret and sadness?

If religious people use the state to violate your bodily integrity against your will for nine months, but really for all time given the fact that pregnancy and birth causes all kinds of changes in a woman’s body, do you think that that might cause mental harm?

<Rape trigger warning> For another example: rape hurts. Sex a woman wants usually does not. Rape is not necessarily any more violent than regular intercourse (though it can be), it’s the overwhelming of your rights as a person to say no, “I do not want this,” the violation of your body, every fiber of your brain screams against it (and frequently people’s body’s, too). This is the same thing. A thing undertaken with your consent is different than a thing undertaken against your consent. The state, even acting as a proxy for the religious feelings of forced birth misogynists, does not have the right to compel a citizen to use their body to grow a human against their will just like they can’t force us to donate a kidney, liver parts, marrow or even blood.

There was nothing about rape in either example. It was plainly about a teenage girl who had become pregnant and carried the baby to term and placed the baby for adoption vs aborted the baby.

Just 1% of women obtain an abortion because they became pregnant through rape, and less than 0.5% do so because of incest, according to the Guttmacher Institute.

PP is equating pro-birthers to rapists.

People who want to force women to do something they don’t want to do.

An apt comparison.

I am asking why once a woman is already pregnant it is considered more traumatic to carry the baby to term and adopt him or her into a family than aborting and ending the life of your own child. There was no rape in 99% of cases women seek abortion.

If you are FORCING a woman to do something with her body that she doesn't want to do, then it's extremely traumatic.

Some would even equate it to RAPE.

There should be a scientific study to determine when life begins, you can try fetal reaction and do things like train in the womb. That would settle it when it's woman body vs baby's body.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To those who think it should just go to the states:

Go even further back. We fought a civil war against states that wanted to keep slavery, remember? No surprise Mississippi is the bellwether.

Bloomberg had an article last week about growing sentiments in both blue and red states about national split….

…this is just going to accelerate this century. By 2100 there will be Atleast three countries where one once stood

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To those who think it should just go to the states:

Go even further back. We fought a civil war against states that wanted to keep slavery, remember? No surprise Mississippi is the bellwether.

Anonymous wrote:To those who think it should just go to the states:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So you knew this was coming, right?

https://www.texastribune.org/2021/12/02/texas-ban-medical-abortion/

The cruelty is the point.

They’ll be after birth control next. They consider it abortive.

“Why can’t you use a condom?”

I am not a Roman Catholic but isn't the "no birth control" dictum because this would stop children from being conceived. As the RCC has ways been controlled by men, then it's men controlling women who produce the children their pedophile priests can molest
Anyone, male or female, who is pro-life should have to give 20% of their income to support all these unwanted babies whose mother's choose to keep them. And, as long as we're deciding about women's bodies then we should also have laws about men who impregnate a woman who is not his wife and castrate them and all men after impregnating their wife three times. I want laws against men as draconian as they are for women.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
There should be a scientific study to determine when life begins, you can try fetal reaction and do things like train in the womb. That would settle it when it's woman body vs baby's body.

Scientist here...and these arguments are asinine. Unless you are proposing that at that moment when you think "science" can tell you that life begins, you are also prepared to incubate the fetus outside of a woman's body. And of course you're not, because you know that the fetus would still need the mother's body to fully gestate. Here's info from Australia: https://www.sahealth.sa.gov.au/wps/wcm/connect/d1024b0042ac3768a346b7ad100c470d/Too+small+too+soon+-+babies+born+23%E2%80%9324+weeks.pdf?MOD=AJPERES&CACHEID=ROOTWORKSPACE-d1024b0042ac3768a346b7ad100c470d-nwK1psv

Have you spent time in a NICU? Do you know what the prognosis of a baby born at 24 weeks is? It's not good, and it costs millions of dollars to keep that baby alive...usually with a lifetime of health consequences. This whole viability argument is, IMHO, a red herring. It's what we have, but I think it disrespects the doctors and scientists who work miracles to improve health outcomes for premature infants to make it the control point for women's bodily autonomy.

Pearls before swine, Scientist. All they know is what they see on Facebook, little “miracle” stories, no talk of the cost (and who will pay those for a child born to a woman who was denied an abortion?), no talk of the likelihood of disabilities (some quite grave). The whole discussion as framed by the forced birthers is the most anti-scientific, anti-woman and childish discussion ever.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

There should be a scientific study to determine when life begins, you can try fetal reaction and do things like train in the womb. That would settle it when it's woman body vs baby's body.

It’s called birth.

A million times this.

Mic drop.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
There should be a scientific study to determine when life begins, you can try fetal reaction and do things like train in the womb. That would settle it when it's woman body vs baby's body.

Scientist here...and these arguments are asinine. Unless you are proposing that at that moment when you think "science" can tell you that life begins, you are also prepared to incubate the fetus outside of a woman's body. And of course you're not, because you know that the fetus would still need the mother's body to fully gestate. Here's info from Australia: https://www.sahealth.sa.gov.au/wps/wcm/connect/d1024b0042ac3768a346b7ad100c470d/Too+small+too+soon+-+babies+born+23%E2%80%9324+weeks.pdf?MOD=AJPERES&CACHEID=ROOTWORKSPACE-d1024b0042ac3768a346b7ad100c470d-nwK1psv

Have you spent time in a NICU? Do you know what the prognosis of a baby born at 24 weeks is? It's not good, and it costs millions of dollars to keep that baby alive...usually with a lifetime of health consequences. This whole viability argument is, IMHO, a red herring. It's what we have, but I think it disrespects the doctors and scientists who work miracles to improve health outcomes for premature infants to make it the control point for women's bodily autonomy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

There should be a scientific study to determine when life begins, you can try fetal reaction and do things like train in the womb. That would settle it when it's woman body vs baby's body.

It’s called birth.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is the reason that carrying a child to term and then placing the baby up for adoption is mentally harmful, causes feelings of regret and sadness, vs aborting the baby and not having mental harm and feelings of regret and sadness?

If religious people use the state to violate your bodily integrity against your will for nine months, but really for all time given the fact that pregnancy and birth causes all kinds of changes in a woman’s body, do you think that that might cause mental harm?

<Rape trigger warning> For another example: rape hurts. Sex a woman wants usually does not. Rape is not necessarily any more violent than regular intercourse (though it can be), it’s the overwhelming of your rights as a person to say no, “I do not want this,” the violation of your body, every fiber of your brain screams against it (and frequently people’s body’s, too). This is the same thing. A thing undertaken with your consent is different than a thing undertaken against your consent. The state, even acting as a proxy for the religious feelings of forced birth misogynists, does not have the right to compel a citizen to use their body to grow a human against their will just like they can’t force us to donate a kidney, liver parts, marrow or even blood.

There was nothing about rape in either example. It was plainly about a teenage girl who had become pregnant and carried the baby to term and placed the baby for adoption vs aborted the baby.

Just 1% of women obtain an abortion because they became pregnant through rape, and less than 0.5% do so because of incest, according to the Guttmacher Institute.

PP is equating pro-birthers to rapists.

People who want to force women to do something they don’t want to do.

An apt comparison.

I am asking why once a woman is already pregnant it is considered more traumatic to carry the baby to term and adopt him or her into a family than aborting and ending the life of your own child. There was no rape in 99% of cases women seek abortion.

If you are FORCING a woman to do something with her body that she doesn't want to do, then it's extremely traumatic.

Some would even equate it to RAPE.

There should be a scientific study to determine when life begins, you can try fetal reaction and do things like train in the womb. That would settle it when it's woman body vs baby's body.

Anonymous wrote:
There should be a scientific study to determine when life begins, you can try fetal reaction and do things like train in the womb. That would settle it when it's woman body vs baby's body.