Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:10 years prison or vasectomy for any man who causes an unwanted pregnancy.

You’re still offering a choice to men even when you punish them. I know you’re being sarcastic but sweet Jesus, even our hyperbolic punishments for men offer more freedom of choice over their bodies than women are legally given in Alabama. This is like when an article in the onion is more premonition than satire.

Anonymous wrote:
Seriously. How many excuses people pull out to kill unborn babies.

Anonymous wrote:The usual, the “sexist” argument about controlling women is actually leftist projection. Pro-abortion men are fine with using women for sex, turning women into purely sexual objects, while getting rid of the responsibility or consequences of sex.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nothing wrong with leaving the legality of abortion to individual states.

Yes, there is. States are not allowed to decide about constitutionally protected rights. That's why we have a federal government and are not a confederacy.

Roe v Wade was a seriously flawed decision which needs to be modified or reversed.

Roe v Wade was flawed. The right to privacy was a made up thing at the time. But it is part of a line of a hugely important cases to the American pUblic. Right to access birth control, right to marry outside your race, right to engage in homosexual behavior, right to educate your children as you prefer (religious schooling), right to end medical “heroic measures”, right to compose your family as you see fit (it the context of laws banning multiple generations from living together”— these were all right to privacy cases.

If you get rid of the right to privacy, all these cases fall. Some, like being allowed to send kids to private or religious schools, conservative like.

The difference is that in the case of abortion, the rights of an unborn child is subjugated to the wishes of the woman carrying the child. Even Roe when it was decided was predicated on the viability of the fetus outside of the mother's womb which is why the abortions in the third semester was constrained. With medical advances that viability has become possible at an even earlier point in the pregnancy.

Anonymous wrote:

If the case for abortion rights is so strong, why is it always cloaked in such euphemisms as “choice,” “women’s health,” and the biggest howler of all, “reproductive rights?” Whatever abortion is about, it is most certainly not about “reproduction.”
5,485 replies 6,922 retweets 22,959 likes

Anonymous wrote:

If the case for abortion rights is so strong, why is it always cloaked in such euphemisms as “choice,” “women’s health,” and the biggest howler of all, “reproductive rights?” Whatever abortion is about, it is most certainly not about “reproduction.”
5,485 replies 6,922 retweets 22,959 likes

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So we will only approve of a baby being born if the baby will have a privileged and problem free childhood?

Let's start with....wanted.

Every child deserves to be wanted.

Every child deserves to be born.

You don’t get to decide that because a child’s family doesn’t meet your standards, they should die.

Read your post again. The only one deciding life decisions for other people is YOU.

The person making the decision whether a child should be born or not -and the "not" could be due to poverty, having an abusive partner or just simply not being wanted- is the mother (and with input from the father) and the medical provider. No one making the pro-choice argument is saying that the decision should be driven by my standards, my neighbor's standards, or your standards. That's entirely the point, you twit. The decision is a personal one and you should keep your nose out of it. Unless you're going to adopt these babies no one wants, or who have special needs, or who were born to drug-riddled mothers. They exist (I actually know families who have adopted those children - gay families, by the way). And by the numbers of them still in foster care, I'm guess you haven't done so.

So why don't you start with the babies already here. And leave medical decisions between women and their providers just that-between them. Babies should be wanted.

All babies should be wanted. It's sad that they aren't. But the alternative is, unfortunately in many cases, a lot worse for these poor kids.

If abortion is a medical issue- it would take place in medical facilities.

It’s not. It’s an elective procedure that takes place in dedicated abortion clinics.

It’s a procedure of convenience and stats bear that out repeatedly.

That's nonsensical. A "dedicated abortion clinic" is a medical facility. But abortions take place in hospitals, clinics, and even at home. The same places that other medical issues are addressed.

Abortion has, for the most part, been performed in the U.S. since its legalization: in freestanding clinics, separate from hospitals and the rest of the medical establishment.

Some hospitals do provide abortions; medically complex abortions.

But the clinics do the bulk of the procedures and provide training and other essential services. Many hospitals, for political reasons, don’t provide abortion training. They will be defunded.

Many hospitals refuse to provide abortions because they help people live and aren’t in the business of elective procedures to kill healthy unborn babies. Medical staff are resistant because of first do no harm and all.

The vast majority of abortions take place in dedicated free standing abortion clinics.

Your propaganda is patently false. Outright lying.

Abortions are done in lots of places. If it’s not advertised, it’s largely because the providers don’t feel like getting bombed.

Really? So when pro choice people say a state has 3 abortion clinics and access is extremely limited and abortion is hard to come by- they are lying?

So there’s LOTS of abortion doctors everywhere and it’s kept on the down low?

Then shut up about abortion accessibility. It’s everywhere.

When the average person off the street would have to drive 500 miles to get a 13-week abortion, it’s a problem. But, in the absence of stupid regulations from people with more bible thumping than medical sense, an early abortion can be done just about anywhere.

Anonymous wrote:The usual, the “sexist” argument about controlling women is actually leftist projection. Pro-abortion men are fine with using women for sex, turning women into purely sexual objects, while getting rid of the responsibility or consequences of sex.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
A few years back I was in a department store dressing room and a lady in the dressing room next to me was yelling at her daughter. She said, "I wish I had never had you. You have ruined my whole life". The girl was crying. Believe me, my heart was breaking. Can you imagine the trauma that girl experienced? I experienced trauma just from hearing that.

I'm sorry, but not all people are meant to be parents and they should be able to decide that. I sure hope that woman did not have any more children.

My mother told me that regularly. Does it mean I should have been killed in the womb? I'm glad she didn't. Despite her telling me that consistently I feel I've accomplished quite a bit without her in my life.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nothing wrong with leaving the legality of abortion to individual states.

Yes, there is. States are not allowed to decide about constitutionally protected rights. That's why we have a federal government and are not a confederacy.

Roe v Wade was a seriously flawed decision which needs to be modified or reversed.

Roe v Wade was flawed. The right to privacy was a made up thing at the time. But it is part of a line of a hugely important cases to the American pUblic. Right to access birth control, right to marry outside your race, right to engage in homosexual behavior, right to educate your children as you prefer (religious schooling), right to end medical “heroic measures”, right to compose your family as you see fit (it the context of laws banning multiple generations from living together”— these were all right to privacy cases.

If you get rid of the right to privacy, all these cases fall. Some, like being allowed to send kids to private or religious schools, conservative like.

The difference is that in the case of abortion, the rights of an unborn child is subjugated to the wishes of the woman carrying the child. Even Roe when it was decided was predicated on the viability of the fetus outside of the mother's womb which is why the abortions in the third semester was constrained. With medical advances that viability has become possible at an even earlier point in the pregnancy.

The survival of very preterm infants has improved substantially in the past two decades, such that the gestational age at which at least half of very preterm infants survive has decreased to 23 weeks.

Are you as a taxpayer willing to shell out the million plus dollars it takes to grow a 23 week fetus into a baby? A local family with health insurance is claiming their early baby with no health problems other than those caused by expelling him early (lungs, brain, heart) will cost over a million dollars before he comes home. They are not viable without costly treatment. This poor child will be delayed and blind. I wonder if any GOP family will adopt him when his father leaves and his mother is unable to support him.

Anonymous wrote:10 years prison or vasectomy for any man who causes an unwanted pregnancy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nothing wrong with leaving the legality of abortion to individual states.

Yes, there is. States are not allowed to decide about constitutionally protected rights. That's why we have a federal government and are not a confederacy.

Roe v Wade was a seriously flawed decision which needs to be modified or reversed.

Roe v Wade was flawed. The right to privacy was a made up thing at the time. But it is part of a line of a hugely important cases to the American pUblic. Right to access birth control, right to marry outside your race, right to engage in homosexual behavior, right to educate your children as you prefer (religious schooling), right to end medical “heroic measures”, right to compose your family as you see fit (it the context of laws banning multiple generations from living together”— these were all right to privacy cases.

If you get rid of the right to privacy, all these cases fall. Some, like being allowed to send kids to private or religious schools, conservative like.

The difference is that in the case of abortion, the rights of an unborn child is subjugated to the wishes of the woman carrying the child. Even Roe when it was decided was predicated on the viability of the fetus outside of the mother's womb which is why the abortions in the third semester was constrained. With medical advances that viability has become possible at an even earlier point in the pregnancy.

The survival of very preterm infants has improved substantially in the past two decades, such that the gestational age at which at least half of very preterm infants survive has decreased to 23 weeks.

Anonymous wrote:
A few years back I was in a department store dressing room and a lady in the dressing room next to me was yelling at her daughter. She said, "I wish I had never had you. You have ruined my whole life". The girl was crying. Believe me, my heart was breaking. Can you imagine the trauma that girl experienced? I experienced trauma just from hearing that.

I'm sorry, but not all people are meant to be parents and they should be able to decide that. I sure hope that woman did not have any more children.